Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

Fo
rP
ee

Comprehensive thermodynamic modeling and analysis of

concentric tubular solar still (CTSS)
rR

Journal: Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

ev

Manuscript ID Draft

Manuscript Type: Original Article

iew

Date Submitted by the

n/a
Author:

Complete List of Authors: Pal, Sunil; National Institute of Technology Raipur, Mechanical
engineering
Dewangan, Satish Kumar; National Institute of Technology Raipur,
On

Mechanical engineering

Concentric tubular solar still, thermal modelling, thermal desalination,

Keywords:
thermodynamic analysis, exergy analysis
ly

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 1 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4 Comprehensive thermodynamic modeling and analysis of
5
6 concentric tubular solar still (CTSS)
7
8 Authors detail:
9
10 (1) Sunil Pal (**), M. Tech. (Thermal), Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of
11 Technology Raipur(CG), India. E-mail: sunilpal5375@gmail.com , Mobile: +91-84499-69151,
12
13 ORCID ID: 0000-0003-0806-6656.
14 (2) Satish Kumar Dewangan, Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National
15 Institute of Technology Raipur (CG), India. E-mail: skdewangan.mech@nitrr.ac.in , Mobile +91-
16
17 94060-75050, ORCHID ID:0000-0001-6698-3247
18
Fo

(**) Corresponding author: Sunil Pal (as above)

19
20 Abstract
21
rP

22 The present research work delves into the thermodynamic modelling and analysis of concentric tubular
23 solar stills (CTSS) using a rigorous mathematical approach. The primary objective is to gain a
24
comprehensive understanding of the system's behaviour by formulating and analysing various crucial
ee

25
26 parameters. To ensure a comprehensive study, various crucial parameters are considered and analysed.
27 These parameters include the basin water temperature, inner and outer glass cover temperatures, heat
28
rR

29
transfer coefficients, heat loss coefficients, thermal efficiency, exergy efficiency, hourly yield, and
30 cumulative yield. Furthermore, a significant aspect of the research involves comparing the effect of
31 different cooling mediums used for the condensation of evaporated water. This comparative analysis
ev

32
allows for the evaluation of different operational scenarios and their impact on the overall efficiency
33
34 and output of the CTSS. To validate the developed thermodynamic models, the obtained results are
iew

35 compared with previously established experimental work on concentric tubular solar stills. The close
36
agreement between the model predictions and experimental data reinforces the accuracy and reliability
37
38 of the developed models. The study is specifically conducted under the environmental conditions of
39 Nagpur city (21.1458° N, 79.0882° E) in the month of May. By selecting this location, the researchers
40
On

ensure that their findings are contextually relevant and applicable to the local conditions. Nagpur city's
41
42 specific geographical and climatic features play a crucial role in shaping the performance and
43 efficiency of the CTSS, and thus, studying this particular location provides valuable insights for
44
ly

practical implementation and optimization. To facilitate the computation of results and generate
45
46 informative visualizations, MATLAB code has been developed. This code allows for efficient analysis,
47 processing, and presentation of the obtained data, enabling a comprehensive interpretation of the
48 research findings. Results of the study indicate that hourly yield, considering only bottom losses, is
49
50 5.071 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 and 3.012 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 when water and air are used as the cooling medium, respectively.
51 However, when all losses are taken into account, the hourly yield decreases to 4.575 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 and 2.555
52
𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 for water and air as the cooling medium, respectively. The percentage error between the two
53
54 cases, comparing all losses to bottom losses when using water and air as the cooling medium, is found
55 to be 10.84% and 17.88%, respectively.
56
57 Keywords: Concentric tubular solar still, thermal modelling, thermal desalination, thermodynamic
58 analysis, exergy analysis.
59
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 2 of 36

1
2
3 Nomenclatures Subscripts
4
5 𝛼 = Absorbtivity 1 = first glass cover
6 𝑞𝑦 = Amount of energy produced due to temperature difference (W/m2) 2 = second glass
7
8
𝐴𝑏 = Area of basin(𝑚2) cover
9 ℎ𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 = Bottom loss coefficient (W/m2.K) 𝑎 = Ambient
10 𝛽 = Coefficient of thermal expansion (1/oC) 𝑏 =back
11
𝜌 = Density (kg/m3) 𝑏 = basin
12
13 𝜇 = Dynamic viscosity (kg/m.sec) 𝑐 = Convective
14 ℎ𝑓𝑔 = Enthalapy of vapourization (kJ/kg) 𝑒 = Evaporative
15
ℎ𝑓,𝑏,1 = Front and back loss coefficient from basin (W/m2.K) 𝑓 = front
16
17 𝐺𝑟 =Grashoff number 𝑔 = glass
18
Fo

ℎ= Heat transfer coefficient 𝑔𝑖 = inner glass

19
20 ℎ𝐿,1 = Heat loss coefficient from 1st glass cover to ambient (W/m2.K) 𝑔𝑜 = Outer Glass
21 𝑖𝑛𝑠 = Insulation
ℎ𝐿,2 = Heat loss coefficient from 2nd glass cover to ambient (W/m2.K)
rP

22 𝑟 =Radiative
23 ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 = Heat transfer coefficient between the glass cover and cooling
24
𝑤 = Water
medium(W/m2.K)
ee

25
26 ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = Heat transfer coefficient from water surface to glass cover
27 (W/m2.K)
28
rR

𝑘𝑔
29
𝑚 = Hourly yield (𝑚2 )
30 𝑀 = mass (kg)
31
ev

32 𝑃𝑟 = Prandtl number
33 𝑅1 = Reflectivity of 1st glass
34 𝑅2 = Reflectivity of 2ndglass
iew

35
36 ℎ𝑠,1 = Side loss coefficient from basin (W/m2.K)
37 Cp = Specific heat (kJ/kg.K)
38 𝜎 = Stefan Boltzmann constant W/m2.K4
39
40 𝑇 =Temperature oC
On

41 k = Thermal conductivity (𝑊 ⁄𝑚. 𝐾 )

42
𝜂𝑇 = Thermal efficiency
43
44 𝑙 = Thickness (𝑚)
ly

45 𝑡 = Time (second)
46 𝑘𝑔
47 𝑀𝑒 = Total yield (𝑚2 )
48
𝜏 =Transmissivity
49
50
51
52
53 1. Introduction
54
55
56 Water scarcity is a pressing global issue that affects numerous regions around the world. Unsafe
57 drinking water is responsible for a significant number of deaths each year, with approximately 48,500
58 deaths attributed to diarrheal diseases caused by the consumption of contaminated water (Sambare et
59
60 al., 2022). The severity of the problem is exacerbated by the fact that only a small percentage of the

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 3 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3 Earth's water resources are suitable for human consumption. Ocean water, which covers about 96.5%
4
5 of the planet's surface, is undrinkable, and a substantial portion of the remaining water is locked in
6 glaciers. In arid and semi-arid regions, obtaining clean water is a formidable challenge. However, solar
7 stills have emerged as a viable solution to address this problem. Passive Solar stills utilize solar energy
8
9 for their operation, eliminating the need for electricity. These devices are designed to occupy minimal
10 space while effectively producing clean water. There are several variations of solar stills available,
11 including spherical, pyramidal, hemispherical, single slope, and double slope solar stills, each differing
12
13 in terms of their sun-exposed surface area. Among the various types of solar stills, tubular solar stills
14 (TSS) have gained popularity due to their ability to generate higher yields compared to conventional
15 solar stills, such as single slope or double slope solar stills, as well as other types. TSS designs are
16
17 optimized to maximize the efficiency of water vaporization and condensation processes, leading to
18
Fo

increased water production. The implementation of tubular solar stills offers a promising approach to
19 alleviate water scarcity, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. By harnessing the abundant solar
20
21
energy available in these areas, solar stills can effectively convert contaminated or saline water into
rP

22 clean, potable water. The utilization of solar energy as the primary power source for water desalination
23 not only reduces reliance on conventional electricity but also contributes to a more sustainable and
24
environmentally friendly approach. Active solar stills do indeed utilize both solar radiation and an
ee

25
26 external energy source to enhance their operation. There are several other processes for the production
27 of potable water, such as the reverse osmosis process and thermal desalination process. In the
28
rR

29
membrane desalination process, potable water is obtained by treating brackish water with membranes
30 using reverse osmosis and electro-dialysis techniques. However, these methods can be quite expensive.
31 On the other hand, thermal desalination is a widely popular and cost-effective method for freshwater
ev

32
production. This is especially true in regions where solar energy is abundant. Considerable efforts have
33
34 been invested in improving the productivity of various types of tubular solar stills, yielding promising
iew

35 results. Even the basic models of tubular solar stills can be modified to enhance their performance.
36
The conventional design of a tubular solar still is relatively simple in construction. However, by
37
38 making slight modifications within the tubular framework, the yield and efficiency of this type of solar
39 still can be significantly improved.
40
On

41
42
1.1 Literature review
43
44 Several studies have been conducted to improve the performance and yield of tubular solar stills,
ly

45 utilizing various techniques and modifications. The following literature review highlights some key
46
47 research findings in this field.
48
49 Pal and Dewangan (2023) present a comprehensive investigation into the mathematical modeling of a
50
51
double basin concentric tubular solar still, with a specific focus on conducting a shadow analysis of
52 the upper basin's effect on the lower basin. The study's key finding suggests that the incorporation of
53 two basins in the concentric tubular solar still significantly enhances the total yield, leading to an
54
55
impressive improvement of up to 6.424 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 .Nagrale and Dewangan (2022) have made a valuable
56 contribution to the field of solar desalination and water purification through their mathematical
57 modeling and rigorous investigation of the simple tubular solar still. Their research sheds light on the
58
59
system's potential for delivering a significant total yield of 5.18 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 during the sunshine hour.
60 Sambare et al. (2022) explores the potential of different low-cost energy storage materials to enhance

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 4 of 36

1
2
3 the productivity of tubular solar stills. The study examines the use of sand, gravel, and black granite
4
5 as potential candidates for improving the performance of these solar stills. These research findings
6 indicate that the use of black granite as an energy storage material in tubular solar stills resulted in
7 approximately 10.5% higher productivity compared to the use of sand. Similarly, when compared to
8
9 gravel, the productivity improvement was approximately 34.88%. Arani et al. (2021) introduced the
10 concept of using fins and a black paint coating on the basin to enhance its absorbing capacity. By
11 implementing these modifications, the absorbing capacity of the basin increased, leading to higher
12
13 total yields of the tubular solar still. Sambare et al. (2021) explored the influence of different glass
14 covers with varying transmissivity on the yield of tubular solar stills. Their study highlighted the
15 importance of selecting glass covers carefully, as they can have a substantial impact on the overall
16
17 yield and performance of tubular solar stills. Thalib et al. (2020) conducted a comparative analysis of
18
Fo

the operational effectiveness of tubular solar stills with phase change material (PCM) and non-phase
19 change material (NPCM). Omara et al. (2016) conducted a comprehensive review of the performance
20
21
of solar stills using reflectors. Their analysis revealed that incorporating reflectors in the design of
rP

22 solar stills can enhance the overall performance by optimizing the utilization of solar radiation.
23 Sivakumar et al. (2016) focused on mathematical modeling of tubular solar stills, taking into account
24
the heat capacity of the glass cover, water, and basin liner. Their research provided valuable insights
ee

25
26 into the thermal behaviour and efficiency of tubular solar stills, aiding in the optimization of their
27 design and operation. Arun Kumar et al. (2012) conducted experimental work on concentric tubular
28
rR

29
solar tubes with compound parabolic concentrators (CPC). Their findings demonstrated that the
30 implementation of CPC, along with water and air as cooling media, can significantly improve the
31 thermal efficiency and net yield of tubular solar stills. Murugavel et al. (2010) focused on enhancing
ev

32
the total yield of tubular solar stills by using energy storage materials. Their study demonstrated that
33
34 incorporating energy storage materials increased the total yield to 3.66 liters per day, indicating the
iew

35 potential for improved water production. El-Sebaii et al. (2009) study highlighted the superior
36
performance of tubular solar stills with PCM, emphasizing the importance of considering PCM as an
37
38 effective heat storage medium.
39
40
On

These studies highlight the diverse approaches and modifications employed to enhance the efficiency,
41
42
yield, and performance of tubular solar stills. The findings provide valuable insights into optimizing
43 the design, material selection, and operating conditions of tubular solar stills, thereby contributing to
44
ly

the advancement of this technology in addressing water scarcity.

45
46
47 As part of the modelling and analysis, Temperature variation equations for the different components
48 of Concentric Tubular Solar Still (CTSS) have been developed using energy balance equations. To
49 enhance the understanding of heat transfer within the system, various heat transfer coefficients have
50
51 been calculated, including the Radiative heat transfer coefficient (ℎ𝑟 ), convective heat transfer
52 coefficient (ℎ𝑐 ), and evaporative heat transfer coefficient (ℎ𝑒 ). The radiative heat transfer coefficient
53 is determined by considering the water surface and glass cover surface as two surfaces of infinite length
54
55 with a small separation. This relationship enables the estimation of radiative heat transfer within the
56 CTSS. Additionally, the present study has taken into account different loss coefficients to improve the
57 performance of the CTSS. While previous investigations have typically considered only bottom loss,
58
59 neglecting the front, back and side loss of the basin, the present work has accounted for all types of
60 losses. Furthermore, heat transfer coefficients have been estimated for both water and air flow, with

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 5 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3 air acting as the cooling medium between the glass cover and the CTSS. By incorporating these cooling
4
5 mechanisms, the study provides a comprehensive analysis of heat transfer within the system. Various
6 parameters of the CTSS, including hourly yield, cumulative yield, thermal efficiency, and energy
7 efficiency, have been calculated. These results are then compared with experimental studies to validate
8
9 the accuracy and effectiveness of the modeling approach. By considering a range of factors and
10 incorporating comprehensive loss coefficients and cooling mechanisms, the present study contributes
11 to a more thorough understanding of the performance of CTSS. The calculated parameters and
12
13 comparison with experimental data provide valuable insights into the efficiency and effectiveness of
14 CTSS for addressing water scarcity.
15
16
2. Physical description of problem
17
18
Fo

19 2.1 Physical aspect of the problem

20 The concentric tubular solar still consists of two glass covers and a basin liner. The first and second
21
rP

glass covers have diameters of 500 mm and 452 mm, respectively. The basin liner has dimensions of
22
23 350×960×20 mm³. The gap between the glass covers is approximately 19 mm. Through analysis and
24 numerous trial and error experiments, it has been determined that this distance is the most suitable, as
ee

25 increasing the gap would result in decrease heat loss. One important aspect to consider is that the gap
26
27 allows for the flow of air and water. Moreover, a larger quantity of water would pose a handling
28
rR

problem. Therefore, the 19 mm gap effectively addresses both issues by reducing the amount of water
29 required while maintaining the desired potable yield. This study develops a mathematical model based
30
31 on the work of Arun Kumar et al. (2012). It differs from their approach by excluding the use of a
ev

32 compound parabolic concentrator and instead incorporates the maximum dimensions proposed by
33 Sambare et al. (2021). The findings demonstrate that by utilizing the given dimensions of a tubular
34
cover, the total yield obtained closely matches that of the CTSS-CPC method. This research
iew

35
36 contributes to the advancement of solar energy systems by offering a promising alternative to
37 conventional concentrator designs. Since there are some many physical processes are involved so to
38
39 proceed in progressive level of complexities only one additional one glass have been considered.
40
On

41 2.2 Novelty of Concentric tubular solar still

42 a. Introduction of extra glass cover in a simple tubular glass cover whose maximum dimension is
43 considered from sambare et al (2022) in a simple tubular glass cover.
44
ly

45
b. Water and airflow between two glass covers.
46 c. The present study considered all losses i.e., side loss, front loss, back loss, and bottom losses
47 which are not considered by many researchers.
48
49
50 2.3 Assumptions
51 1) There should be no leakage of vapor
52
2) Heat capacity of basin liner and glass cover is not considered.
53
54 3) Heat capacity of basin water considered only
55 4) CTSS should place horizontal.
56
5) Temperature gradient is remaining constant throughout the depth of water.
57
58 6) Water and air temperature in the gap remain constant throughout the working process.
59 2.4 Working Principle
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 6 of 36

1
2
3 Concentric Tubular solar still showed in figure 1 Consists of a basin liner and two glass covers. Basin
4
5 liners contain water as solar radiation incidents on the glass cover. After being transmitted from both
6 the glass cover and the water surface, the solar radiation hits the water surface and heats it. The water
7 then evaporates and moves to the glass cover, where, due to the temperature difference, vapor releases
8
9 its latent heat of condensation. This vapour then converts to water particles and gets collected at the
10 bottom.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo

19
20
21
rP

22
23
24
ee

25
26
27
28
rR

29
Figure 1. Isometric view of concentric tubular Figure 2. Thermal network of Concentric tubular
30 solar still solar still
31
ev

32
33
34
3. Methodology
iew

35
36 3.1 Mathematical modeling of concentric tubular solar still.
37
38 The present study models the mathematical relationship of concentric tubular solar stills, calculates
39
40 the various parameters, compares these parameters with those in similar papers, and also provides an
On

41 understanding that, without using concentrator parabolic concentric, it is possible to get yields very
42 close to CTSS without CPC by improving the dimension of concentric tubular solar stills.
43
44
ly

45 Table 1: Different values of thermophysical properties for CTSS calculations

46
47 S.N. Parameter Values S.N. Parameter Values
48 1 𝑅1 0.04 12 ℎ𝑠,1 (When water 0.685 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 . 𝐾
49
50 flowing) present study
51 2 𝑅2 0.04 13 ℎ𝑓,𝑏,1 (When water 0.316 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 . 𝐾
52
flowing) present study
53
54 3 𝑅𝑤 (Tiwari & 0.05 14 ℎ𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 (When water 1.999 𝑊⁄𝑚2 . 𝐾
55 Tiwari, 2007) flowing) present study
56
57
4 𝛼𝑔,1 0.005 15 ℎ𝑠,1 (When water 0.209 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 . 𝐾
58 flowing) present study
59
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 7 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3 5 𝛼𝑤 (Tiwari & 0.05 16 ℎ𝑓,𝑏,1 (When water 0.316728
4
5 Tiwari, 2007) flowing) present study 𝑊 ⁄𝑚 2 . 𝐾
6 6 𝛼𝑏 (Sivakumar et 0.9 17 ℎ𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 (When water 1.138988
7
al., 2016) flowing) present study 𝑊 ⁄𝑚 2 . 𝐾
8
9 7 𝑀𝑤 7.085 (kg) 18 ℎ𝑏−𝑤 (Sivakumar et al., 135 W/m2.K
10 2016)
11
12 8 cp (Sivakumar et al., 3930 J/kg.K 19 𝐾 0.17 W/m.K
13 2016)
14 9 𝜏1 (Sivakumar et 0.9 20 𝜎 5.67 *10-8
15
16 al., 2016) W/m2.K4
17 10 𝜏𝑤 (Sivakumar et 0.95 21 ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (Tiwari & Tiwari, 25 W/m2.K
18
Fo

al., 2016) 2007)

19
20 11 𝐾𝑖𝑛𝑠 (Sivakumar et 0.015 22 ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 (Present study) 497.4656
21 al., 2016) W/m2.K (For
rP

22 water cooling
23 medium)
24
2.63217 W/m2.K
ee

25
26 (For air cooling
27 medium)
28
rR

29
30 3.2.General energy balance equations for basin water, glass cover, and basin liner temperatures
31
ev

32
33 The expression of glass cover temperature, basin water temperature, and basin liner temperature is
34 shown below after solving the energy balance equation, and the final expression is obtained by using
iew

35 the assumed value from Table 1.

36
37
38 (a) Temperature for outer surface of 1st glass cover
39
40 Heat loss from 1st glass cover surface by convection and radiation = Conduction heat transfer from
On

41 inner side of 1st glass cover to outer side of glass cover.

42
43 𝑘𝑔,1
44 ℎ𝐿,1 ∗ (𝑇𝑔𝑜,1 − 𝑇𝑎 )= ∗ (𝑇𝑔𝑖,1 − 𝑇𝑔𝑜,1 ) (1)
ly

𝑙𝑔,1
45
46 𝑘𝑔,1
∗𝑇𝑔𝑖 −ℎ𝐿,1
47 𝑙𝑔,1
48 𝑇𝑔𝑜 = 𝑘𝑔,1 (2)
+ ℎ𝐿,1
49 𝑙𝑔,1

50
51 Where, ℎ𝐿,1 = ℎ𝑐,1 + ℎ𝑟,1
52
53 (b) Temperature for inner surface of 1st glass cover
54
55 Solar radiation absorbed by inner surface + convection and radiation heat transfer from outer surface
56
of 2nd glass cover to inner surface of 1st glass cover = conduction heat transfer from inner side of 1st
57
58 glass cover to outer side of 1st glass cover.
59
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 8 of 36

1
2
3 𝑘𝑔,1
4 I (t)∗ (1 − 𝛼𝑔,1 ) ∗ 𝑅1 + ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 ∗ (𝑇𝑔𝑜,2 − 𝑇𝑔𝑖,1 ) = ∗ (𝑇𝑔𝑖,1 − 𝑇𝑔𝑜,1 ) (3)
𝑙𝑔,1
5
6 𝑘𝑔,1
I (t)∗(1−𝛼𝑔1 )∗𝑅1 + ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 ∗(𝑇𝑔𝑜,2 )+ ∗𝑇
7 𝑙𝑔,1 𝑔𝑜,1
𝑇𝑔𝑖,1 = 𝑘𝑔,1 (4)
8 + ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓
𝑙𝑔,1
9
10
11
(c) Temperature for outer surface of 2nd glass cover
12 Heat transfer from outer surface of 2nd glass cover to ambient = conduction heat transfer from inner
13 surface of 2nd glass cover to outer surface of 2nd glass cover
14
15 𝑘𝑔,2
16
ℎ𝐿,2 ∗ (𝑇𝑔𝑜,2 − 𝑇𝑎 ) = ∗ (𝑇𝑔𝑖,2 − 𝑇𝑔𝑜,2 ) (5)
𝑙𝑔,2
17
18
Fo
𝑘𝑔,2
∗𝑇𝑔𝑖,2 +ℎ𝐿,2 ∗𝑇𝑎
𝑙𝑔,2
19 𝑇𝑔𝑜,2 = (6)
𝑘𝑔,2
20 𝑙𝑔,2
+ℎ𝐿,2
21
rP

22 1 𝑙𝑔,1 1 1
23 Where, = +ℎ +ℎ
ℎ𝐿,2 𝑘𝑔,1 𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝐿,1
24
ee

25 (d) Temperature for inner surface of 2nd glass cover

26
27
Incident solar radiation absorbed by the inner surface of 2nd glass cover + heat transfer by convection,
28 radiation and evaporation from water surface to the inner side of 2nd glass cover = heat transfer from
rR

29 inner side of 2nd glass cover to ambient.

30
31 I (t)∗ (1 − 𝛼𝑔,1 ) ∗ (1 − 𝑅1 ) ∗ (1 − 𝛼𝑔,2 ) ∗ 𝑅2 + ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ∗ (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑔𝑖,2 ) = ℎ𝐿,2 ∗ (𝑇𝑔𝑖,2 − 𝑇𝑎 ) (7)
ev

32
33 I (t)∗(1−𝛼𝑔,1 )∗(1−𝑅1 )∗(1−𝛼𝑔,2 )∗𝑅2 +ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ∗(𝑇𝑤 )+ℎ𝐿,2 ∗(𝑇𝑎 )
34 𝑇𝑔𝑖,2,𝑛+1 = (8)
ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 +ℎ𝐿,2
iew

35
36 When water is cooling medium, 𝑇𝑔𝑖,2,𝑛+1 = 1.393*10(-4)*I(t) + 0.759*𝑇𝑤 +9.374 (9)
37
38
39
When air is cooling medium, 𝑇𝑔𝑖,2,𝑛+1 = 1.680*10(-4)* I(t) +0.916*𝑇𝑤 +3.261 (10)
40
On

41 (e) Temperature for basin water

42 Solar radiation absorbed by the water surface + heat transfer from basin to water = heat transfer by
43 convection, radiation and evaporation from water surface to the inner side of 2nd glass cover + decrease
44
ly

45 in internal energy of water.

46
47 I(t) ∗ (1 − 𝛼𝑔,1 ) ∗ (1 − 𝑅1 ) ∗ (1 − 𝛼𝑔,2 ) ∗ (1 − 𝑅2 ) ∗ (1 − 𝛼𝑤 ) ∗ (𝑅𝑤 ) + ℎ𝑏 ∗ (𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇𝑤 ) = ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ∗
48 𝜕𝑇
(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑔𝑖,2 ) + 𝑚 ∗ 𝑐 ∗ 𝜕𝜏 (11)
49
50
𝜕𝑇𝑤 (ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 +ℎ𝑏 )∗𝑇𝑤 I (t)∗(1−𝛼𝑔,1 )∗(1−𝑅1 )∗(1−𝛼𝑔,2 )∗(1−𝑅2 )∗(1−𝛼𝑤 )∗(𝑅𝑤 )+ℎ𝑏 ∗𝑇𝑏 +ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ∗𝑇𝑔𝑖,2
51 + = (12)
52 𝜕𝜏 𝑚∗𝑐 𝑚∗𝑐
53 𝜕𝑇𝑤
54 + 𝑎1 ∗ 𝑇𝑤 = 𝑐1 (13)
𝜕𝜏
55
56 𝑐1 ∗(1−𝑒^(−𝑎1 ∗𝑡)
𝑇𝑤𝑛+1 = + 𝑇𝑤 ∗ 𝑒 (−𝑎1 ∗𝑡) (14)
57 𝑎1
58
59 When water as cooling medium,
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 9 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3 𝑇𝑤𝑛+1 = 1.552*10(-6)*I(t) +4.834*10(-3)*𝑇𝑏 +8.953*10(-4)*𝑇𝑔𝑖,2 +0.994*𝑇𝑤 (15)
4
5
6
When air as cooling medium,
7
8
𝑇𝑤𝑛+1 = 1.552*10(-6)*I(t) +4.834*10(-3)*𝑇𝑏 +8.953*10(-4)*𝑇𝑔𝑖,2 +0.994*𝑇𝑤 (16)
9
10 Where, ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = ℎ𝑐 + ℎ𝑒 + ℎ𝑟
11
12 (f) Temperature for basin liner
13 Solar radiation absorbed by basin liner = heat transfer from basin liner to water + side and bottom
14 heat loss from basin to ambient
15
16
I (t)∗ (1 − 𝛼𝑔,1 ) ∗ (1 − 𝑅1 ) ∗ (1 − 𝛼𝑔,2 ) ∗ (1 − 𝑅2 ) ∗ (1 − 𝛼𝑤 ) ∗ (1 − 𝑅𝑤 ) ∗ 𝛼𝑏 = ℎ𝑏 ∗
17
18 (𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇𝑤 ) + (ℎ𝑠,𝑙𝑜𝑛 + ℎ𝑏 + ℎ𝑠,𝑡𝑟𝑎 ) ∗ (𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇𝑎 ) (17)
Fo

19
20 I (t)∗(1−𝛼𝑔,1 )∗(1−𝑅1 )∗(1−𝛼𝑔,2 )∗(1−𝑅2 )∗(1−𝛼𝑤 )∗(1−𝑅𝑤 )∗𝛼𝑏 +ℎ𝑏 ∗𝑇𝑤 +(ℎ𝑠,𝑙𝑜𝑛 +ℎ𝑏 +ℎ𝑠,𝑡𝑟𝑎 )∗𝑇𝑎
𝑇𝑏,𝑛+1 = (18)
21 ℎ𝑏 +(ℎ𝑠,𝑙𝑜𝑛 +ℎ𝑏 +ℎ𝑠,𝑡𝑟𝑎 )
rP

22
23 When water is cooling medium,
24
ee

25 𝑇𝑏,𝑛+1 = 5.370*10(-3)*I(t)+0.978*𝑇𝑤 +0.848 (19)

26
27 When air is cooling medium,
28
rR

29 𝑇𝑏,𝑛+1 = 5.419*10(-3)*I(t)+0.987*𝑇𝑤 0.498 (20)

30
Where, 𝑇𝑤 , 𝑇𝑏 , and 𝑇𝑔 are initial guess temperature and taken 30℃ , n = 0 for t = 1 second
31
ev

32
33 3.3.Calculation of Heat transfer coefficients
34 As solar radiation absorbs on the surface of water, the water gets heated and evaporates, exchanging
iew

35 heat with the glass cover and involving various heat transfer coefficients like convective heat transfer
36
37
coefficient (hc), Radiative heat transfer coefficient (hr), and evaporative heat transfer coefficient (he).
38
39
(a) Convective heat transfer coefficient (hc)[Dunkle et al, 1961]
1⁄
40
On

(𝑃𝑤 −𝑃𝑔 )∗(𝑇𝑤 +273) 3

41 ℎ𝑐 = 0.884 ∗ [𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑔 + ] (21)
268.9∗103 −𝑃𝑤
42
43 5144
44 𝑃𝑤 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 [25.314 − ]
ly

45 𝑇𝑤 + 273
46
47 5144
𝑃𝑔 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 [25.314 − ]
48 𝑇𝑔 + 273
49
50 Where, 𝑃𝑤 and 𝑃𝑔 are vapor pressure on water surface and on inner surface of glass cover.
51
52 (b) Evaporative heat transfer coefficient (𝒉𝒆 )[Dunkle et al, 1961]
53
𝑃𝑤 −𝑃𝑔
54 ℎ𝑒 = 0.01623 ∗ ℎ𝑐 ( 𝑇 ) (22)
55 𝑤 −𝑇𝑔

56
57 (c) Radiative heat transfer coefficient (𝒉𝒓 )
58 𝜎. (𝑇𝑤 +𝑇𝑔 ).(𝑇 2 𝑤 +𝑇 2 𝑔 )
ℎ𝑟 = 1 1 (23)
59 + −1
∈𝑤 ∈𝑔
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 10 of 36

1
2
3 Here the Radiative heat transfer coefficient is obtained by considering the glass cover and water
4
5 surface as two planes of infinite length whose separation is very small. And ∈𝑤 , ∈𝑔 are emissivity of
6 water and glass.
7
8 3.4.Heat transfer calculation when water and air flow between the gaps of horizontal concentric
9
cylinder and serve as cooling medium.
10
11 (a) For air [Holland et al 1974],
12 ∗
𝑘 1708 ∗ 𝑅𝑎 1/3
13 ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟 = L*(1+1.44) ∗ [1 − ] + [(5830) − 1] (24)
𝑅𝑎
14
15 𝑅𝑎 = 𝐺𝑟 ∗ 𝑃𝑟
16
17 𝑔. 𝛽. ∆𝑇. 𝐿3
18
Fo

𝑅𝑎 = ∗ 𝑃𝑟
19 𝜇 2
( ⁄𝜌)
20
21
rP

Where, * shows here if negative arguments inside the bracket comes out whole term taken as zero
22
23 (b) For water [Holland et al 1974],
24 1
ee

25 𝑅𝑎3
∗ 1 [1−ln( 140 )]
26 𝑘 1708 ∗ 𝑅𝑎 1/3 𝑅𝑎3
27 ℎ𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝐿 *(1+1.44) ∗ [1 − ] + [(5830) − 1] + 2.0 ∗ [140 ] (25)
𝑅𝑎
28
rR

29
30 Where, L is the gap between two glass covers or thickness of cooling medium, Ra is Rayleigh
31 number, k is thermal conductivity of cooling medium.
ev

32
33 3.5.Different heat loss coefficients of CTSS
34 In the present study, heat loss coefficients are calculated by considering each component of the CTSS:
iew

35
36 side heat loss coefficient from the side wall of the basin to ambient, bottom loss coefficient from the
37 bottom section of the basin to ambient, and heat loss from the front side of the basin. These loss
38 coefficients help to understand how much watt-m2/K energy will be lost by the basin to the
39
40
environment.
On

41
42
(a) Side loss coefficient (𝒉𝒔,𝟏 )
43 1 𝑙𝑏 1 𝑙𝑔,2 1 𝑙𝑔,1 1
44 = + + + + +
ly

ℎ𝑠,𝑙𝑜𝑛 𝑘𝑏 ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑔,2 ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑘𝑔,1 ℎ𝐿,1

45
𝐴𝑠,𝑙𝑜𝑛 ∗2
46 ℎ𝑠,𝑙𝑜𝑛,1 = ℎ𝑠,𝑙𝑜𝑛 ∗ ( ) (26)
𝐴𝑏
47
48
49
(b) Front and back side loss coefficient (𝒉𝒇,𝒃,𝟏 )
50 1 𝑙𝑏 1 𝑙𝑔 1
51 = + + +
ℎ𝑠,𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛 𝑘𝑏 ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑔 ℎ𝐿,1
52
53 𝐴𝑠,𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 ∗2
54 ℎ𝑠,𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛,1 = ℎ𝑠,𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛 ∗ ( ) (27)
𝐴𝑏
55
56 (c) Bottom loss coefficient (𝒉𝒃𝒐𝒕𝒕𝒐𝒎 )
57 1 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑠 𝑙 1 𝑙𝑔2 1 𝑙𝑔,1 1
58
ℎ𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚
= 𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑠
+ 𝑘𝑏 + ℎ +𝑘 +ℎ +𝑘 +ℎ (28)
𝑏 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑔2 𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑔,1 𝐿,1
59
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 11 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3 3.6.Calculation of various parameter of Concentric tubular solar still (CTSS)
4
5
6 There are various parameters like hourly yield, thermal efficiency, and exergy efficiency. Hourly yield
7 tells how much quantity of potable water get collected at the bottom of the still, with the help of which
8 entire collection of potable water for the whole day can be estimated. Thermal efficiency is used here
9
10 to know how efficient our system is. Exergy efficiency used here to estimate ratio of actual work to
11 the reversible work.
12
13 (a) Hourly yield:
14 ̅̅̅𝑤̅ − 𝑇̅𝑔 )
𝑞𝑦 = ℎ𝑒 ∗ (𝑇 (29)
15
16
Where, ̅𝑇̅̅𝑤̅ and 𝑇̅𝑔 are average water and glass temperature.
17
18
Fo

̅̅̅̅
ℎ𝑒 ∗(𝑇 ̅̅̅
𝑤 −𝑇𝑔 )∗3600
19 𝑚= (30)
ℎ𝑓𝑔
20
21
rP

22 𝑀𝑒 = ∑9𝑖=1 𝑚
23
24 Total yield is calculated during the sunshine hour only, this can be confirmed by using of 𝑇𝑔𝑖,2,𝑛+1 ,
ee

25 𝑇𝑤,𝑛+1 and 𝑇𝑏,𝑛+1.

26
27 (b) Thermal efficiency:
28
rR

𝑚∗ℎ𝑓𝑔
29 𝜂𝑇 = 𝐴 *100 (31)
𝑏 ∗𝐼(𝑡)∗∆𝑡
30
31 Here, ℎ𝑓𝑔 = enthalpy of vaporization (kJ/kg), 𝐴𝑏 = area of basin (m2), 𝐼(𝑡) = intensity of solar
ev

32
33 radiation, ∆𝑡 = time in second for one hour
34
iew

35 (c) Exergy efficiency:

36 (
𝑚𝑒 ×ℎ𝑓𝑔 𝑇 +273.15
)×[1−( 𝑎 )]
37 𝜂𝑒𝑥𝑟 = [
3600 𝑇𝑤 +273.15
] × 100 (32)
4 𝑇 +273.15 1 𝑇 +273.15 4
38 (𝐴×𝐼(𝑡))×[1−( )×( 𝑎
3
)+ ×( 𝑎
𝑇𝑠 3
) ]
𝑇𝑠
39
40
On

In the present study, general energy balance equations have been developed for finding temperature of
41
42 various components at different interval of time throughout the day. These temperatures were used to
43 find different parameters like hourly yield, thermal efficiency and exergy efficiency and expression of
44
ly

these parameters has been discussed. Different loss coefficient considered here are to provide accuracy
45
46 to the present study and to maintain close relationship to evaluate the solar still performance.
47
48 3.7. Algorithm for mathematical modelling of CTSS and its solution
49 Step 1: writing energy balance equation for each component of CTSS like inner glass cover, water
50 surface and basin liner.
51
52 Step 2: Arrange these energy balance equations in the form of temperature for inner glass cover
53
54
temperature, water temperature and basin liner temperature.
55
56
Step 3: select some of the standard experimental reference paper for assuming some of the average
57 value which is impossible to calculate, like heat transfer coefficient between water and basin. As this
58 is mathematical modelling, it cannot be such that one can assume any value by itself. Assume constant
59
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 12 of 36

1
2
3 temperature difference between water and glass cover, air and glass cover and find heat transfer
4
5 coefficient. See table-1 above for reference.
6
7 Step 4: calculate solar intensity from sunrise to sunset within 15 min time interval and take average
8 value of solar intensity for 1 hour, and subsequently for the sunshine hour.
9
10 Step 5: Use the equation in step 2 and generate a MATLAB code for which one can choose minimum
11 time step like 1 second or 0.5 second or may less then this for better accuracy. Assume same initial
12
13 guess temperature for inner glass cover temperature, water temperature and basin temperature for
14 R.H.S in the equation and maintain average solar intensity to be constant for 1 hour whatever time step
15 is considered for starting the calculation in iterative manner.
16
17 Step 6: At the end of 1 hour note the value of inner cover temperature, water temperature and basin
18
Fo

19 liner temperature and also note average value of temperature.

20
21 Step 7: With the date available in step 6 calculate 𝑃𝑤 , 𝑃𝑔 ,ℎ𝑐 , ℎ𝑟 , ℎ𝑒 , 𝑞𝑦 , 𝑚,𝑀𝑒 , 𝜂𝑇 , 𝜂𝐸 .
rP

22
23 Step 8: plot results.
24
It may be noted that in the equations 15 and 16 it can be seen that water temperature is function of basin
ee

25
26 temperature and in equation 18 basin temperature is a function of water temperature do not confuse
27
that it make a vicious loop but after assuming initial guess for inner glass cover temperature (𝑇𝑔𝑖,2 ),
28
rR

29 water temperature (𝑇𝑤 ) and basin temperature (𝑇𝑏 ), and after assuming all necessary value one will
30 have numeric value on R.H.S. and one its done, with the help of iterative procedure entire values of
31
ev

32
temperature can be calculated.
33
34
4 Results and discussion
iew

35 A mathematical model has been developed by the present study, and Matlab code has been generated
36 to run the equation for glass cover temperature, basin water temperature, and basin liner temperature.
37
38
These temperatures are important to know for various physical parameters of concentric tubular solar
39 stills, like hourly yield, cumulative yield, thermal efficiency, and exergy efficiency. The present study
40
On

introduces the concept of modelling of concentric tubular solar still because it has not been done by
41
42
any researcher previously, and it helps to understand how any real model can be mathematically solved
43 by using equations. Here initial temperature taken as 30℃ for glass cover, basin water, and for basin
44
ly

liner, average solar intensity for 1 hour is considered with time step size of 1 second. The MATLAB
45
code run for 1 hour or 3600 times with the average solar intensity for 1 hour, for every next hour’s
46
47 average solar intensity is different as solar radiation continuously changes from sun rise to sun set.
48 Figure 3 shows hourly average solar radiation with respect to hourly time for the Nagpur location:
49
21.145° N, 79.0882° E. Solar intensity starts varying from morning to evening, with maximum solar
50
𝑊
51 intensity at noon. At 6 am solar intensity is 238.56 and ambient temperature is 30.8℃, at 6 pm
𝑚2 ∗𝐾
52 𝑊
53 solar intensity is 168.605𝑚2 ∗𝐾 and ambient temperature is 38.8℃ maximum solar intensity at noon
54 𝑊
55 time is about 981𝑚2 ∗𝐾 and ambient temperature is maximum at 2 pm is 42.0℃.
56
57 (4.1) Basin water temperature
58 In the conducted study, the basin water depth was set at 0.02 meters, and the analysis focused on the
59
60 evaporation of basin water utilizing abundant solar radiation. Figure 4 presents the basin water

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 13 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3 temperature for two scenarios: when air and water flow between the gap of glass covers, both with and
4
5 without the Compound Parabolic Concentrator (CPC). Observing Figure 4, it is evident that when the
6 CTSS is equipped with a CPC, the maximum temperature difference between the two cooling
7 mediums, water and air, is approximately 7℃. Conversely, in the absence of a CPC, when water and
8
9 air flow between the gaps of glass covers, the maximum temperature difference is approximately
10 10.3℃. These findings highlight the impact of the CPC on temperature differentials within the system.
11 The implementation of a CPC effectively reduces the temperature difference between water and air,
12
13 indicating a more controlled and regulated thermal environment. This can lead to improved efficiency
14 and performance of the CTSS.
15
16
17
18
Fo

19
20
21
rP

22
23
24
ee

25
26
27
28
rR

29
30
31 Figure 3. Solar intensity vs. Time in hours Figure 4. Basin water temperature for concentric
ev

32
33
tubular solar still with CPC and without CPC and
34 with water and air flow between two glass
iew

35 covers.
36
37
38
39
(4.2) Temperature of inner side of 2nd glass cover
40 Figure 5 illustrates the temperature variation of the glass cover over time in a Concentric Tubular Solar
On

41 Still (CTSS) without a Compound Parabolic Concentrator (CPC), using air and water as cooling media.
42
It is evident that the temperature is notably higher when air is employed as the cooling medium
43
44 compared to water. This disparity arises due to the higher heat transfer coefficient of water relative to
ly

45 air. In this study, the implementation of two glass covers effectively reduces heat loss to the
46
surrounding environment. It is widely acknowledged that glass becomes opaque to shorter wavelength
47
48 radiation, further influencing the temperature of the glass and water. Consequently, when air is used
49 as the cooling medium, both the glass cover and water attain higher temperatures compared to when
50 water is used. The maximum temperatures observed in this study are 72.9℃ and 59.2℃ for air and
51
52 water as cooling media, respectively.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 14 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 5. Temperature of Inner Figure 6. Basin water and glass Figure 7. Basin water and
17
18 surface of 2nd glass cover when cover temperature of CTSS
Fo

glass cover temperature of

19 concentric tubular solar still without CPC when water flow in CTSS without CPC when air
20 the gap of two glass cover.
21
without CPC is used and water, flow in the gap of two glass
rP

22 air flow between the glass cover.

23 covers
24
ee

25
26
27
28 (4.3) Basin water and glass cover temperature when water flow between the gap of glass
rR

29 cover
30
31
ev

32
Water proves to be an exceptionally effective cooling medium in solar stills, significantly reducing the
33 temperature of the glass cover. This temperature reduction leads to an increased temperature difference
34 between the basin water and the glass cover, thereby accelerating the condensation process. The
iew

35
36
incorporation of double glass within the solar still design prevents the direct transfer of energy released
37 during condensation to the ambient temperature, ultimately enhancing the overall efficiency of the
38 system. Figure 6 presents the maximum temperatures recorded for the basin water and glass cover,
39
measuring at 65.4℃ and 59.2℃, respectively. The graph clearly depicts that both the glass cover
40
On

41 temperature and the water temperature are initially high. As flowing water passes through the system,
42 it actively absorbs heat from the glass cover, subsequently causing the temperature to decrease rapidly.
43
This dynamic heat exchange between the flowing water and the glass cover contributes to the efficient
44
ly

45 cooling process within the solar still.

46
47 (4.4) Basin water and glass cover temperature when air flow between the gap of glass cover
48
Figure 7 presents the maximum temperatures recorded for the glass cover and the basin water,
49
50 measuring at 72.9℃ and 75.8℃, respectively. It is notable that the temperature difference between the
51 basin water and the glass cover is relatively small. This outcome can be attributed to the low heat
52 transfer coefficient between the air and the glass cover. The small temperature difference indicates that
53
54 the heat transfer between the basin water and the glass cover is less efficient due to the presence of air
55 as the cooling medium. Air typically has a lower heat transfer coefficient compared to other substances,
56 such as water. Consequently, the heat exchange between the air and the glass cover is less effective,
57
58 resulting in a smaller temperature disparity between the basin water and the glass cover. The observed
59 temperatures in Figure 7 highlight the importance of optimizing the cooling medium in solar stills to
60 achieve the desired temperature differentials for efficient operation and condensation processes.

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 15 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4
5 (4.5) Hourly yield
6 Figure 8 illustrates the hourly yield of a concentric tubular solar still operating without a Compound
7 Parabolic Concentrator (CPC). The comparison is made between using water and air as cooling
8
9 mediums. The results reveal that the maximum hourly yield when water is used is 1.01608, whereas
10 with air as the cooling medium, the maximum hourly yield is 0.712431. These findings clearly indicate
11 that utilizing water as a cooling medium leads to a higher hourly yield. The current study aims to
12
13 emphasize the significant impact of using water instead of air on the overall yield of the system. The
14 data obtained demonstrates that the use of water as a cooling medium yields favourable results,
15 resulting in a notably higher hourly yield. This highlights the importance of considering the choice of
16
17
cooling medium to optimize the performance and output of concentric tubular solar stills.
18
Fo

19
(4.6) Cumulative yield
20 Figure 9 displays the cumulative yield of the Concentric Tubular Solar Still (CTSS) without a
21 Compound Parabolic Concentrator (CPC) when using water and air as cooling mediums. The
rP

22
23
cumulative yield for water is recorded at 4.61 kg/m2, while for air, it is measured as 2.91 kg/m2 (Arun
24 kumar et al., 2012). Furthermore, a study by Arunkumar et al. (2012) indicates that when a CPC is
ee

25 implemented in the CTSS, the total yield with water as the cooling medium reaches 5.125 kg/m 2,
26
whereas with air, it amounts to 3.126 kg/m2. These findings demonstrate the substantial impact of the
27
28 cooling medium on the cumulative yield of the CTSS. It is evident that using water as a cooling
rR

29 medium leads to higher cumulative yields compared to air, both in systems without a CPC and those
30
with a CPC. The data from Arunkumar et al.'s study supports the notion that selecting water as the
31
ev

32 cooling medium can significantly enhance the total yield of the CTSS, emphasizing the importance of
33 this choice in optimizing the overall performance of the system.
34
iew

35 (4.7) Thermal efficiency

36 Figure 10 highlights the maximum thermal efficiency achieved in a Concentric Tubular Solar Still
37
38 (CTSS) when water and air are used as cooling mediums. The results indicate that the maximum
39 thermal efficiency recorded when water is used as the cooling medium is 67.62%. In contrast, when
40
On

air is employed as the cooling medium, the maximum thermal efficiency reaches 47.41%. This data
41
42 emphasizes the significant difference in thermal efficiency based on the choice of cooling medium.
43 The CTSS demonstrates a considerably higher thermal efficiency when water is utilized, resulting in
44
ly

a more efficient conversion of solar energy into usable heat. On the other hand, when air is used as the
45
46 cooling medium, the thermal efficiency is comparatively lower. These findings highlight the
47 importance of selecting the appropriate cooling medium to optimize the thermal efficiency of the
48 CTSS, ultimately improving its overall performance and energy conversion capabilities.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 16 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo

Figure 8. Hourly yield of CTSS without CPC when Figure 9. Cumulative yield of CTSS without CPC
19
20 water, air flow between gap and serve as a cooling when water, air flow between gap and
21 medium
rP

22
23
24
ee

25
26
27
28
rR

29
30
31
ev

32
33
34
iew

35
36
37
38
39
40
On

41
Figure 10. Thermal efficiency of CTSS without Figure 11. Exergy efficiency of CTSS when air
42
43 CPC when water, air flow between gap and serve and water flow as cooling medium
44 as a cooling medium.
ly

45
46
47 (4.8) Exergy efficiency
48 Based on Figure 11, it is evident that the exergy efficiency of water flow within the gap of the glass
49
covers exhibits an initial increase until noon time, followed by a subsequent decrease compared to the
50
51 exergy efficiency of air flow between the gaps of the glass covers. The maximum exergy efficiency
52 achieved for water as a cooling medium is recorded at 8.05%, while for air, it reaches 8.02%.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 17 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo

19
20 Figure 12. Variation in water and glass cover Figure 13. Variation of thermal and exergy
21 temperature with hourly yield at given time when efficiency with hourly yield at a given time when
rP

22
23
water cooling medium (wcm) and air-cooling water cooling medium (wcm) and air-cooling
24 medium(acm) is used. medium(acm) is used.
ee

25
26
27 (4.8) Characteristic curve
28
rR

29
Figure 12 displays the temperatures of various components at different values of hourly yield at a
30 specific instant in time. At 1 pm, which corresponds to the maximum hourly yield of 1.016 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2,
31 0.627𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 it is evident that the temperature of the glass cover is 59.2℃ and 73.6℃, while the water
ev

32
33 reaches maximum temperatures of 65.4℃ and 76.2℃ when water and air are used as the cooling
34 medium. Figure 13 illustrates the thermal and exergy efficiencies at a specific point in time. At 1 pm,
iew

35 the maximum hourly yield is observed to be 1.016 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 and 0.627 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 when water and air are
36
37 used as the cooling medium, respectively. At this point, the maximum thermal efficiency is recorded
38 as 67.6% and 41.7%, while the maximum exergy efficiency is measured at 8.05% and 7.15%.
39
40 (4.9) Conclusions
On

41 A mathematical model of CTSS has been developed and MATLAB codes have been generated by
42
43 assuming an initial temperature of 30℃ and a constant average solar intensity for 1 hour. The time
44 step size is taken as 1 second. This code run for 3600 times or 1 hour with constant average values of
ly

45 solar intensity, for every another hour average value of solar intensity is different and used to get
46
47
temperature value throughout the day.
48 • It is very difficult in mathematical modelling to allow water and air to flow between gaps of glass
49 covers, but with the help of relations (Holland et al., 1974), it became possible to overcome this
50
51 problem. These relations help to allow motion for that fluid, which we are considering stationary.
52 • Various loss coefficients, like the side loss coefficient, the bottom loss coefficient, and the front
53 side loss coefficient, are considered to help analyse the problem more thoroughly.
54
55 • Hourly yield and cumulative yield have been calculated, and it can be concluded that if CTSS is
56 used with and without CPC and with water as the cooling medium, the difference in cumulative
57 yield for both is about 515 gm, and when air is the cooling medium, it is 216 gm. But it can be said
58
59 that the cost of compound parabolic concentric (CPC) is about 125 dollars (Arun Kumar et al.
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 18 of 36

1
2
3 2012), which is too high. Use of CTSS without CPC will be more economically sound for the sake
4
5 of the initial cost of the system, even though its dimensions are different than CTSS-CPC here.
6 • In the present study, a 19 mm gap between glass covers is used from the paper of Holland et al.
7 (1974); it helps to increase yield and also maintain a low quantity of cooling medium to give
8
9 maximum thermal efficiency and total yield.
10 • The percentage error, considering all losses compared to considering only bottom losses, is 10.84%
11
when water is used as the cooling medium. When air is used as the cooling medium, the percentage
12
13 error increases to 17.88%. A comparative analysis with different papers is presented in Table 2.
14 Additionally, Figure 14 illustrates the changes in hourly and cumulative yield at different time
15
intervals, considering both bottom losses and all losses.
16
17
18
Fo

19 Table 2. Compression of total yield when water

20 flowing as cooling medium and when air flowing as
21
rP

cooling medium
22
23
24 Authors Yield when water Yield when
ee

25
flowing as cooling air flowing
26
27 medium as cooling
28
rR

medium
29
Arunkumar 5.125kg/m2 3.126 kg/m2
30
31 et al. (2012)
ev

32
Present study 5.071 kg/m2 3.012 kg/m2
33
34 with (Bottom
iew

35 loss only)
36
Present study 4.575 kg/m2 2.555 kg/m2 Figure 14. Variation of hourly and cumulative
37
38 with (all yield with time when water used as cooling
39 losses) medium with bottom and with considering all
40
On

losses
41
42
43
44 5.1 Future recommendations
ly

45 • Increasing yield with low cost energy storage: The yield of the concentric tubular solar still (CTSS)
46
can be enhanced by incorporating low-cost energy storage materials. This approach has the
47
48 potential to improve overall system efficiency and performance. However, it's important to
49 consider that the use of such materials will impact the total cost of the system. Therefore, a careful
50
cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to evaluate the feasibility and economic viability of
51
52 implementing low-cost energy storage solutions.
53 • Addressing losses from basin to ambient: The prevention of heat losses from the basin to the
54
ambient environment is a significant challenge in CTSS design. One approach to mitigate these
55
56 losses is by utilizing better insulation materials for the basin. Alternatively, conducting a
57 comprehensive heat loss study can provide insights into the factors contributing to heat losses and
58
facilitate the development of effective methods to prevent or minimize them. This could involve
59
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 19 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3 implementing insulation techniques, optimizing system design, or exploring novel heat retention
4
5 approaches.
6 • Enhancing yield with external source integration: Increasing the yield of the CTSS can be achieved
7 by incorporating an external heat source. This additional heat input can improve the system's
8
9 performance, enabling it to operate efficiently during both day and night. By leveraging external
10 energy sources, such as waste heat or renewable energy, the CTSS can maximize its yield potential
11 and operate more effectively in diverse conditions.
12
13
14
15 Acknowledgement
16
17 This work is supported by the National Institute of Technology Raipur, which has given unlimited
18
Fo

time for reading books and both online and offline research papers.
19
20 Disclosure statement
21
rP

22 No potential conflict of interest is reported by the author(s).

23
24 References
ee

25
26 Arani, R. P., Sathyamurthy, R., Chamkha, A., Kabeel, A. E., Deverajan, M., Kamalakannan, K.,
27 Balasubramanian, M., Athikesavan, and Manokar, M. (2021). Effect of fins and silicon dioxide
28
rR

29 nanoparticle black paint on the absorber plate for augmenting yield from tubular solar still.
30 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13126-y/Published
31
ev

32
33
Arunkumar, T., Jayaprakash, R., Ahsan, A., Denkenberger, D., and Okundamiya, M. S. (2013). Effect
34 of water and air flow on concentric tubular solar water desalting system. Applied Energy, 103, 109–
iew

35 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.014
36
37
38 Dunkle, R.V. (1961). Solar water distillation: the roof of type still and multiple effect diffusion still,
39 International developments in heat transfer, ASME, Proc. International Heat Transfer, Part V,
40
On

41
University of Colorado, 1961, p. 895.
42
43 El-Sebaii, A. A., Al-Ghamdi, A. A., Al-Hazmi, F. S., andFaidah, A. S. (2009). Thermal performance
44
ly

of a single basin solar still with PCM as a storage medium. Applied Energy, 86(7–8), 1187–1195.
45
46 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.10.014
47
48
Holland K. G. T. and Rarthbyt, G. D., and Konicek, L. (1975). Hear Mass Transfer (Vol. 18).
49
50 Pergamon Press.
51
52 Murugavel, K. K., Sivakumar, S., Ahamed, J. R., Chockalingam, K. K. S. K., and Srithar, K. (2010).
53
54 Single basin double slope solar still with minimum basin depth and energy storing materials. Applied
55 Energy, 87(2), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.07.023
56
57
58 Nagrale, P., and Dewangan, S. K. (2022). Mathematical modelling and analysis of thermodynamic
59 performance parameters of tubular solar still. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization and
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 20 of 36

1
2
3 Environmental Effects, vol. 44(3), page 6129–6152 (2022).
4
5 https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2022.2095464
6
7 Omara, Z. M., Kabeel, A. E., and Abdullah, A. S. (2017). A review of solar still performance with
8
9 reflectors. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (Vol. 68, pp. 638–649). Elsevier Ltd.
10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.031
11
12
13 Pal, S., and Dewangan, S. K. (2023). Thermodynamic modeling and performance analysis of newly
14 conceptualized Double basin concentric tubular solar still. International Journal on Interactive Design
15 and Manufacturing (IJIDeM). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-023-01393-7
16
17 Sambare, R. K., Dewangan, S. K., Gupta, P. K., and Joshi, S. (2022). Energy, exergy and economic
18
Fo

19 analyses of tubular solar still with various transparent cover materials. Process Safety and
20 Environmental Protection, 168, 1101–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.10.064
21
rP

22 Sambare, R. K., Dewangan, S. K., Gupta, P. K., and Joshi, S. (2022). Augmenting the productivity of
23 tubular solar still using low-cost energy storage materials. Environmental Science and Pollution
24
Research, vol. 29(52), page 78739–78756 (2022a). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21324-5
ee

25
26
27
Sambare, R. K., Dewangan, S. K., Gupta, P. K., and Joshi, S. S. (2021). Exergy and thermo-economic
28 analyses of various tubular solar still configurations for improved performance. Energy Sources, Part
rR

29 A: Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects, 43(21), 2672–2691.

30
31
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2021.1887977
ev

32
33 Sivakumar, V., Sundaram, E. G., and Sakthivel, M. (2016). Investigation on the effects of heat capacity
34
on the theoretical analysis of single slope passive solar still. Desalination and Water Treatment, 57(20),
iew

35
36 9190–9202. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1026284
37
38
Thalib, M. M., Manokar, A. M., Essa, F. A., Vasimalai, N., Sathyamurthy, R., and Garcia Marquez,
39
40 F. P. (2020). Comparative Study of Tubular Solar Stills with Phase Change Material and Nano-
On

41 Enhanced Phase Change Material. Energies, 13(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/en13153989

42
43
44 Tiwari, A. K., and Tiwari, G. N. (2007). Thermal modelling based on solar fraction and experimental
ly

45 study of the annual and seasonal performance of a single slope passive solar still: The effect of water
46 depths. Desalination, vol. 207(1–3), page 184–204 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.07.011
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Page 21 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
570x388mm (38 x 38 DPI)
31
32
iew

33
34
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 22 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26 719x383mm (38 x 38 DPI)
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
Page 23 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32 696x512mm (38 x 38 DPI)
iew

33
34
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 24 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34 591x476mm (38 x 38 DPI)
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
Page 25 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34 605x481mm (38 x 38 DPI)
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 26 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
608x474mm (38 x 38 DPI)
34
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
Page 27 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34 598x475mm (38 x 38 DPI)
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 28 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34 608x481mm (38 x 38 DPI)
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
Page 29 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34 599x481mm (38 x 38 DPI)
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 30 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
618x479mm (38 x 38 DPI)
34
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
Page 31 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34
584x476mm (38 x 38 DPI)
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 32 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
534x279mm (38 x 38 DPI)
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
Page 33 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26 550x294mm (38 x 38 DPI)
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 34 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26 554x296mm (38 x 38 DPI)
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
Page 35 of 36 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47 411x514mm (38 x 38 DPI)
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk
 Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects Page 36 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
rP
20
556x202mm (38 x 38 DPI)
21
22
23
ee

24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
ev

30
31
32
iew

33
34
35
36
37
On

38
39
40
41
ly

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueso Email: UESO-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk