See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311858790

Characterization of dust accumulated on photovoltaic panels in Doha, Qatar

Article  in  Solar Energy · January 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2016.11.053

CITATIONS READS

34 636

4 authors:

Wasim Javed Wubulikasimu Yiming

Texas A&M University at Qatar Texas A&M University at Qatar
30 PUBLICATIONS   199 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   102 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ben Figgis Bing Guo

Qatar Foundation Texas A&M University at Qatar
41 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS    64 PUBLICATIONS   1,376 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Photovoltaics Soiling - Field Measurement, Modeling and Mitigation View project

Energy Grand Challenge/QEERI View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wasim Javed on 24 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Characterization of dust accumulated on photovoltaic panels in Doha,

Qatar
Wasim Javed a, Yiming Wubulikasimu a, Benjamin Figgis b,c, Bing Guo a,⇑
a
Texas A&M University at Qatar, PO Box 23874, Doha, Qatar
b
Qatar Environment & Energy Research Institute, HBKU, PO Box 5825, Doha, Qatar
c
ICube Laboratory, University of Strasbourg–CNRS, Strasbourg, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, samples of dust naturally accumulated for various exposure times on photovoltaic (PV) pan-
Received 7 June 2016 els were collected and characterized over a period of ten months in a solar test facility located in Doha,
Received in revised form 31 October 2016 Qatar. The dust accumulation rate (DAR) over the exposure time was determined gravimetrically. The
Accepted 29 November 2016
dust samples were characterized using particle size analysis, X-ray fluorescence (XRF), X-ray diffraction
(XRD), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The cleanness index change rate (CICR), a measure of
how fast the PV power output degrades due to soiling, was found to have strong negative correlation with
Keywords:
DAR, but the CICR/DAR ratio was found to differ between winter and summer. The DAR and the mean
Dust accumulation rate
Exposure time
particle size of the accumulated dust both decreased with increasing exposure time, reaching relatively
Particle size steady values for longer exposure times. Calcium was found to be the most abundant element in the
Chemical composition accumulated dust, followed by silicon, iron, magnesium and aluminum. Calcite, dolomite, and quartz
XRD were the dominant minerals in the accumulated dust, with gypsum being a minor component. Dust col-
XRF lected after dust-storm events had higher proportions of halite and quartz contents than non-dust-storm
days, depending on the direction of the wind. Also, dust particles accumulated on PV panels appeared to
agglomerate as the exposure time increased. The data provided in this paper will be useful for quantita-
tively determine the degree of soiling and its effect on PV performance in Qatar and regions with similar
environmental conditions. The data will also be useful for the selection of soiling mitigation technologies.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Environmental concerns and growing energy demand have
increased interest in photovoltaic (PV) solar power worldwide in
recent years, as a promising renewable energy source. Qatar, as
well as other countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
region, has a tremendous potential for development and deploy-
ment of solar power generation, due to the high solar irradiation
levels and the availability of land. However, the extreme climatic
conditions and desert environment in the region pose significant
challenges to the successful deployment of solar power generation
(Sarver et al., 2013).
Numerous studies have shown that dust accumulation on solar
surfaces can cause significant degradation of their solar conversion
Abbreviations: DAR, dust accumulation rate; CICR, cleanness index change rate;
PM10, particulate matter concentration with aerodynamic particle size 610 lm;
WS, wind speed; WD, wind direction; RH, relative humidity.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bing.guo@qatar.tamu.edu (B. Guo).
efficiency (Darwish et al., 2015; Said and Walwil, 2014; Sayyah
et al., 2014; Tanesab et al., 2015). The effect of soiling is a function
of dust loading on the PV module. Dust accumulation rate on mod-
ule surfaces mostly depends on airborne particle concentration,
distribution of aerodynamic particle size, and weather conditions,
which are all site specific factors (Said and Walwil, 2014). The dust
accumulation rate may also vary with the outdoor exposure time
(Mastekbayeva and Kumar, 2000). For example, in the Greek capi-
tal, Athens, dust deposition masses of 0.1–1 g m
2 were recorded
for the outdoor exposure periods of 2–8 weeks (Kaldellis and
Kokala, 2010). A dust loading of 6.184 g m
2 was reported for an
exposure period of ten months (February to December) in Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia (Adinoyi and Said, 2013). In another work, a dust
accumulation rate of 132 mg m
2 day
1 was found in Mesa, Ari-
zona (Boppana, 2015). Similarly, mass accumulation rates of 1–
50 mg m
2 day
1 in Colorado (Boyle et al., 2015) and 150–
300 mg m
2 day
1 in the Minia region, Egypt (Hegazy, 2001), were
observed depending on the tilt angle and location. More recently,
dust accumulation rates of 10–80 and 5–20 mg m
2 day
1 on 40°

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.11.053
0038-092X/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
124 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135
inclined glass plates have been reported at Commerce City and the
Erie site, respectively, in Colorado, US (Boyle et al., 2016).
The characteristics of deposited dust have a significant impact
on soiling-related PV performance degradation. Various laboratory
studies have shown that the impact of dust soiling on PV energy
yield is dependent on the dust physicochemical properties
(Appels et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2011; John et al., 2016; Kaldellis
and Fragos, 2011; Kaldellis et al., 2011; Kaldellis and Kapsali,
2011; Khatib et al., 2013; Sulaiman et al., 2011). These laboratory
studies have identified 15 types of dust pollutants, of which six
pollutant types (i.e. ash, limestone, red soil, calcium carbonate, sil-
ica, and sand) are believed to have a greater effect than others on
PV performance degradation at a given surface loading (Darwish
et al., 2015). However, most of these studies have used artificial
dust, and there has been little research regarding the physico-
chemical characteristics of naturally deposited dust in real-world
operating conditions. Soiling studies with adequate natural dust
chemical composition information would be useful for under-
standing the relation between soiling-induced effect and chemical
composition.
Understanding physicochemical characteristics of accumulated
dust is also essential for the development of soiling mitigation
technologies. Chemical composition, along with particle size distri-
bution, determines how dust particles interact with the PV surface,
and hence affects the applicability and effectiveness of PV soiling
mitigation technologies (Horenstein et al., 2013; Johnson et al.,
2005; Kazmerski et al., 2016; Mazumder et al., 2015). Various the-
ories suggest that, by rendering the PV module surface hydrophilic
or hydrophobic, it is possible to mitigate soiling. However, it has
been shown that the affinity of particles to PV surfaces is not only
dependent on the PV surface properties, but also the particle prop-
erties. These aspects highlight the importance of understanding
the characteristics of deposited dust (Kim et al., 2016). There are
also active methods of PV soiling mitigation, through the mechan-
ical or electrostatic removal of dust particles from the surface.
Information on the particle properties will be useful for assessing
the adhesion force of the particles, or for determining their motion
in an electric field (Mazumder et al., 2015; Quesnel et al., 2015).
Soiling-related PV performance degradation is also dependent
on particle size distribution of dust deposited on the surface (El-
Shobokshy and Hussein, 1993; Pulipaka et al., 2016; Said and
Walwil, 2014). Particle size plays a significant role in reflectance,
scattering, and absorption of light incident on solar cells and in
turn, leads to PV performance degradation. The greater tendency
of resuspension for larger particles, even at moderate wind speed,
promotes accumulation of smaller-size dust particles (Weber et al.,
2014). Finer particles may cause more significant performance
degradation of PV modules than larger particles for the same mass
of dust. Smaller particles, having the greater specific surface area,
may be distributed more uniformly as compared to the coarser
dust particles, thus reducing the voids between the particles
through which light can pass (Tanesab et al., 2015). Weber et al.
(2014) reported that particle sizes deposited on the PV surface
mostly lie within a range of 1–50 lm. However, overall there has
been limited research on particle size distribution of dust accumu-
lated on PV panels in desert environments.
Characterization of accumulated natural dust and its impact on
PV system efficiency are limited, given the fact that dust accumu-
lation is a complex phenomenon and varies with site-specific envi-
ronmental and weather conditions (Kazmerski et al., 2016; Mani
and Pillai, 2010). However, through systematically study dust
accumulation in various locations of interest to PV power genera-
tion, it is hoped that the PV soiling problem may be better under-
stood and addressed. This study was carried out in Doha, Qatar. It
was intended to characterize dust accumulation on PV surfaces
through a systematic approach. Specifically, this study aimed to
(1) quantify the rate of dust accumulation on PV panels for various
exposure periods, and (2) determine the physical and chemical
properties of accumulated dust, and their correlation with environ-
mental variables, time of exposure and soiling-induced PV perfor-
mance loss.
2. Methodology
2.1. Sampling of accumulated dust
Sampling of dust accumulated on PV panels was carried out at
the Solar Test Facility (STF) (at latitude 25°190 32.6100 N and longi-
tude 51°250 59.8300 E) located at Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar.
Samples of accumulated dust were collected from the surface of
twelve panels of a PV array (CdTe thin film frameless, Pmax
90 W, tilted at 22° and facing due South). Each panel is 1.2 m in
width, 0.6 m in height and 6.8 mm in thickness. A photo of the test
PV array is shown in Fig. 1. Of the twelve panels, four panels were
used to collect daily samples, i.e., accumulated dust was collected
every 24 h from these four panels. The 24-h dust samples were col-
lected from 11 January 2015 to 20 February 2015 (winter period),
and from 1 June 2015 to 15 July 2015 (summer period). The other
eight panels were used to collect two-week, one-month, two-
month and six-month accumulated dust samples; two panels for
each sampling frequency.
The matrix of dust sampling from the PV panels is shown in
Fig. 2. The environmental variables, shown in Fig. 2, have no strong
trend that might be constructed to have a role in causing the
dependence on exposure time. Dust accumulated on the surface
of the PV panels was scraped off with a rubber spatula and care-
fully collected in a polystyrene Petri dish. The spatula used for
scraping dust was made from a polyvinyl chloride acetate (PVCA)
card that measures 90 mm by 45 mm by 1 mm. A long side of
the spatula was gently pressed against the PV panel surface and
moved down to scrape the dust down the lower edge of the panel.
The falling dust was collected in the Petri dish. Multiple scrapes
were used for each area of the PV panel until the area was clean;
i.e. there was no visible dust present. This procedure was carried
out for the entire PV panel so as the ensure all dust on the panel
was collected
2.2. Analyses of the dust samples
All collected dust samples were subjected to the analyses
described below. Daily collected dust samples during a month
were subjected to gravimetric analysis individually and then
Fig. 1. Photo of a test PV array used in this study. The 12 panels on the outside
(perimeter) were used for dust sample collection.
 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135
Fig. 2. PV Dust Accumulation Sampling Matrix and the environmental variables (Each strip represent an exposure period. Arrows indicate two dust-storm days of February 9
and June 23, 2015).
combined into one-month agglomerated samples for the other
analyses. However, daily samples collected on dust-storm days
(February 9 and June 23, 2015) were submitted for all analyses
separately, without being combined with other daily samples.
For gravimetric analysis, the Petri dish was weighed before and
after collecting the dust sample to determine the dust sample
mass, using a Discovery DV215CD semi-microbalance (Ohaus
Corp., Pine Brook, NJ, USA) with a sensitivity of 0.01 mg. The dust
samples collected in Petri dishes were acclimatized to the temper-
ature and humidity conditions in the laboratory (20–22 °C; 45 ± 5%
RH) for at least 48 h before weighing.
Particle size distribution of the collected dust samples was mea-
sured using an LS13-321 MW laser diffraction particle size ana-
lyzer (Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA) in the dry powder mode.
Mineralogy characterization was performed using an Ultima IV
X-ray powder diffractometer (Rigaku Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and inte-
grated PDXL2 powder diffraction software. While a ZSX-Primus II
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer (Rigaku Corp., Tokyo, Japan)
was used for elemental analysis. A KratosAxisUltra, X-ray photo-
electron spectrometer, XPS (Kratos Analytical, Manchester, UK)
was utilized for surface compositional characteristics. Particle
morphology analysis was carried out on a Quanta 400 scanning
electron microscope (FEI, Hillsboro, OR, USA) equipped with an
Apollo XP EDS system (EDAX Inc., Mahwah, NJ, USA). The XRD,
XRF, EDS, and XPS analysis were used to established and inter-
compare the compositional characteristics. The EDS and XPS give
the surface compositional information and were used to monitor
the consistency in the results and complement the bulk informa-
tion from XRF.
2.3. PV performance and environmental variable measurements
Concurrent PV performance data were collected at the STF test-
ing site. From the PV performance data, the Cleanness Index
125
Change Rate (CICR), a measure of how fast the PV power output
degrades due to soiling, was determined to quantify the PV soiling
level. The value of the Cleanness Index ranges from 0 to 1, with 1
for a perfectly clean PV module. Details of the PV data collection
and Cleanness Index calculation have been described elsewhere
(Guo et al., 2015). In addition, ambient dust concentration
(PM10), wind speed (WS), wind direction (WD), and relative
humidity (RH) were also measured at the site. PM10 concentration
was measured using a TSI 8533EP DustTrak DRX Aerosol Monitor
(TSI Inc., Shoreview, MN, USA). WS was measured by a wind speed
transmitter (Thies Clima, Gottingen, Germany), WD by a wind
direction transmitter (Thies Clima, Gottingen, Germany), and air
temperature and RH by a hygro-thermo transmitter-compact
(Thies Clima, Gottingen, Germany). The 24-h arithmetic mean val-
ues were calculated for PM10, WS, and RH. The 24-h mean of WD
was computed by treating all angular measurements as points on
the unit circle and computing the resultant vector of the unit vec-
tors determined by data points (Guo et al., 2015).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Dust accumulation rate
3.1.1. Seasonal variation of DAR
The daily average dust accumulation rate (DAR) along with the
daily average of four environmental variables, i.e., PM10, WS, RH,
and WD, are shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that daily DAR follows
the same trend as the concentration of PM10, while on days when
WS was higher (except dust-storm events) DAR was reduced.
Mean values of DAR and environmental variables in the winter
(11 Jan to 20 Feb 2015) and summer (01 Jun to 15 Jul 2015) periods
are given in Table 1. The DAR for the bi-monthly exposure was
higher (142 mg m
2 d
1) in the winter period than in the summer
period (98 ± 15 mg m
2 d
1). The CICR for the bi-monthly exposure
126 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135
Fig. 3. Daily (24-h) dust accumulation rate (DAR) and corresponding environmen-
tal variables during the winter (11-Jan to 20-Feb) and summer (1-June to 15-July)
sampling periods.
(PV modules cleaned every two months) was also higher (
1.1%
d
1) during the winter period as compared to the summer period
(
0.4% d
1). Apparently, this was due to the lower WS and higher
RH in the winter period, the favorable conditions for dust accumu-
lation on PV panels, even though PM10 concentration was lower in
the winter period. As reported in our previous study (Guo et al.,
2015), the daily PV soiling rate (referred to as daily DCI) was pos-
itively correlated with WS and negatively correlated with RH.
DAR results for various exposure periods from this study are
compared with other reports, as shown in Table 2. The daily DAR
in this study is in the same range as found in Bankok, Thailand
(Mastekbayeva and Kumar, 2000), Minia region, Egypt (Hegazy,
2001), Rumah, Saudi Arabia (Jones et al., 2016) and Baghdad, Iraq
(Saidan et al., 2016). The DAR of our study is much higher than
Athens, Greece (Kaldellis and Kokala, 2010), Mexico City (Weber
et al., 2014), Mesa, Arizona (Boppana, 2015) and Commerce City
and Erie, CO, US (Boyle et al., 2016). The various dust accumulation
results were recorded with widely varying exposure time, ambient
dust concentration, and weather conditions. Hence, there is wide
variability in the dust accumulation rates, showing its dependence
on the exposure period, time of the year, deposition surfaces, geo-
graphical location and prevailing climate conditions (Said and
Walwil, 2014). This variation highlights the need for measurement
of ambient dust concentration and weather conditions in PV soil-
ing studies at a particular location, so that the soiling results may
be interpreted with the relevant input variables (environmental
variables), and generalizable soiling relations may be quantita-
tively derived.
Table 1
Mean values of DAR and other variables.
Period Mean values (±STD)
Bi-monthly DAR (mg m
2 d
1) Bi-monthly CICR (% d
1) CICR/DAR ratio (% per 100 mg m
2)
Winter 142
1.1 (±0.9)
0.7
Summer 98 (±15)
0.4 (±0.8)
0.4
3.1.2. DAR dependence on exposure time
The DAR of PV modules also depends on the time of exposure to
outdoor environmental conditions. In this study, when examining
the relation between DAR and exposure time, we excluded periods
that contained rain events. Therefore, what is presented here is pri-
marily the effect of ‘‘dry” exposure time on DAR. However, in some
sampling periods, water condensation apparently occurred. We
observed signs of water streams flowing down the PV panel. Most
such observations were in the winter, when RH was high. The DAR
results are shown in Fig. 4. It was observed that recently-cleaned
panel surfaces retain more dust than dirty ones. DAR decreased
sharply during the first two weeks of exposure, and then became
relatively steady as exposure time increased.
DAR decreased with increasing time of exposure. For example,
the average DAR for the six-month exposure is 80 mg m
2 d
1
(14,547 mg m
2 over 180 days), which is lower than the averages
for two-month (120 mg m
2 d
1), one-month (140 mg m
2 d
1),
two-week (155 mg m
2 d
1) and 24-h (260 mg m
2 d
1) exposure
periods. It can be seen that DAR decrease sharply during the first
two weeks of deposition and after that became relatively steady.
In other words, daily DAR was higher in the early stages of dust
accumulation and steadied as exposure time approached six-
months. The reason for this trend may be that as dust accumulates
on the PV panels, the resuspension rate increases, and hence, the
net dust accumulation rate decreases over time. Dust accumulation
as a function of exposure time for a short period (one month) has
been reported by Mastekbayeva and Kumar (2000). They also
observed a sharp decrease in DAR during the initial two weeks of
deposition, which dropped sharply from 440 mg m
2 d
1 during
the first week to about 120 mg m
2 d
1 after two weeks, and after
that, it became relatively steady up to one month of the study
period.
The accumulated dust mass increased with exposure time as
shown in Fig. 5. On average, an accumulated dust mass of about
5 g m
2 was recorded after a month-long accumulation, which
then increased to 15 g m
2 after six months of field exposure.
The cumulative dust mass over a particular period can be predicted
by fitting a power curve, as given in Fig. 5, where ‘‘D” is the expo-
sure time measured in days. For example, one would be able to
predict the total amount of accumulated dust after a year from
these equations (excluding the cleaning effect of rain). In this
study, the amount of dust collected after a year would be
32.87 g m
2 (17.41 and 15.46 g m
2 respectively for Winter and
Summer six-month periods), assuming that the weather conditions
and all other factors are constant. It must be noted that the trends
may vary for different climatic conditions and geographical
locations.
3.1.3. Correlation between DAR and other variables
The relationship between the DAR and airborne PM concentra-
tion, as well as other environmental variables, is not commonly
reported in the literature. Also, there is only scarce information
about the relationship between accumulated dust characteristics
and PV performance reduction. Net dust accumulation on a PV
panel is the result of simultaneous deposition of airborne dust
and resuspension of deposited dust; the environmental variables
PM10 (lg m
3) WS (m s
1) RH (%) WD (°)
140 (±50) 1.94 (±0.90) 62 (±5) 270 (±80)
153 (±60) 2.48 (±1.10) 36 (±10) 324 (±60)
 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135 127

Table 2
Comparison of measured daily DAR of this study with other studies from various cities around the world.

Location Sampling period Deposition surface Exposure period Tilt angle, DAR Reference
orientation (mg m
2 d
1)
Doha, Qatar Jan-Oct 2015 PV modules Daily 22°, South 215–306 This study
(1.2  0.6 m2) Biweekly 155
Monthly 140
Bimonthly 120
Six-month 80
Bankok, Thailand Apr-May 1998 Plastic sheets 6 days- one month 15°, South 125–440 Mastekbayeva and Kumar
(30  30 cm2) (2000)
Minia region, 1999 Glass plates (7  7 cm2) Weekly 0°, Horizontal 230–330 Hegazy (2001)
Egypt 20°, South 150–200
Rumah, Saudi Jan-Dec 2015 Glass plates (5  5 cm2) Weekly for 12 months 0°, Horizontal 25–190 Jones et al. (2016)
Arabia 15°, South 35–165
Baghdad, Iraq Sept 2014 PV module Daily 30°, South-west 210 Saidan et al. (2016)
Weekly 57
Athens, Greece Aug-Sept 2009 PV modules 2–8 weeks 30°, South 15–20 Kaldellis and Kokala (2010)
(988  448 mm2)
Mexico City Dec 2012-May Glass plates (60 cm2) Weekly 0°, Horizontal 65 Weber et al. (2014)
2013 (24–102)
Colorado, US Aug 2011-Jun Glass plates 1–5 weeks 0°, Horizontal 20–50 Boyle et al. (2015)
2014 (10  10 cm2) 40°, South 12–35
Mesa, AZ, US 20–22 Oct 2014 PV module 2 days 33°, South-west 132 Boppana (2015)
Commerce City, Aug 2011-Jun Glass plates 1–5 weeks (mostly 0°, Horizontal 10–120 Boyle et al. (2016)
US 2014 (10  10 cm2) 2 weeks) 40°, South 10–80
Erie, CO, US Nov 2012-May 0°, Horizontal 5–60
2014 40°, South 5–20

Fig. 4. The DAR decreases with exposure time in a ‘‘power law” manner. One two-
month (February-March) dust sample was included in the winter, and two samples
(April-May and June -July) were included in the summer period. One six-month
sample (from March to Aug) was included in the summer period.
mostly influence have been reported to be WS and RH (Figgis et al.,
2016).
The correlation between daily DAR and environmental variables
for 24-h exposure time was also examined in this study. PM10 at
the site varied between 40 and 340 lg m
3 with an average of
146 ± 50 lg m
3 during the sampling period. Relations between
daily DAR and environmental variables are complex as the WS
and RH both have a dual role in overall dust accumulation on the
PV surfaces. In general, the average daily DAR was higher at ele-
vated PM10 concentration, higher RH, and lower WS. (Fig. 3).
PM10 has a less strong correlation (r = 0.41) with DAR that is due
to the fact that particles larger than 10 lm in aerodynamic diame-
ter are deposited but are not counted in the PM10 measurement.
Fig. 5. Cumulative dust loading increases with the exposure time in a power law
manner.
The particle size analysis also shows that 35% of particles in the
daily-deposited dust are smaller than 10 lm.
The rate of resuspension is a function of RH and WS (Figgis
et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2016). Higher RH promotes high DAR by
reducing the resuspension rate of dust particles. Overall, daily
DAR was greater on days with the higher RH levels. Higher RH pro-
motes adhesion of dust particles to PV surfaces and inhibits their
resuspension by the wind (Kim et al., 2016). This aspect is consis-
tent with the fact that higher RH increases dust accumulation onto
PV modules and hence promotes the adhesion of dust, as the water
content of the fallen particles forms a bonding force between the
particles and the PV surface. Such an effect of RH on PV soiling
has been confirming in our previous study (Guo et al., 2015). The
RH affects the threshold WS for resuspension of deposited dust
particles. Ibrahim et al. (2004) demonstrated that the threshold
WS to detach 50% of stainless steel microspheres (64–76 lm) from
128 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135
glass surfaces in a wind tunnel increased from 3.6 to 13.4 m s
1 as
RH increased from 18 to 67%. This result suggests that the dust
resuspension effect of high-speed winds is enhanced when the
deposited dust particles contain the little moisture, which makes
them less sticky and more likely to be carried away by the wind.
When humidity is sufficiently high, condensation may occur on
the accumulated dust (Figgis et al., 2016). There are two possible
outcomes related to condensation. First, this may lead to cementa-
tion, in which a crust forms between the particle and surface over
successive cycles of condensation and drying (Sarver et al., 2013;
Sayyah et al., 2014). Secondly, the condensation may lead to dew
formation and results in a partial cleaning effect (Caron and
Littmann, 2013). However, there is little information available
about this cleaning effect.
In contrast, high-speed winds cause higher resuspension of
already deposited dust on PV panels and hence decrease DAR. In
general, low-speed wind increases dust settlement, while high-
speed wind tends to remove dust from PV surfaces and results in
cleaning (Figgis et al., 2016; Mani and Pillai, 2010). However, on
some high wind-speed days, DAR was high. Those were dust-
storm events typically, when PM10 was very high. Nonetheless,
PV panel position (e.g., tilt angle, orientation) in relation to the
wind also affects dust deposition.
The correlation between DAR and WD is the weakest of correla-
tions examined in this study (Table 3). This might be explained by
the fact that the NW and NWW prevailing winds covered the entire
range of wind speeds, but winds from other directions typically
only occurred in the low WS range (Guo et al., 2015). Because
DAR relatively strongly depended on WS, the peculiar WS, and
WD relation led to the weak correlation between DAR and WD
(Guo et al., 2015). However, in locations where there is no such
biased WS distribution, the dust accumulation rate can exhibit a
significant correlation with WD. A study carried out in Minia, Egypt
(Elminir et al., 2006) quantified dust deposition on the glass plates
installed at different orientations and tilt angles, simultaneously.
The results indicate that at lower tilt angles, the dust deposition
was higher for glass samples facing the south and southwest, oppo-
site to the prevailing wind direction (from the north and north-
east). For north and northeast facing surfaces, the dust
accumulation was lower.
There is a relatively high correlation between daily DAR and
CICR, as shown in Table 3. Of interest is the ratio of CICR to DAR,
which quantifies the PV performance degradation as a function
of dust loading on the PV surface. As can be seen in Table 1, the
CICR/DAR ratio of the winter period is higher than that of the sum-
mer period. The values of CICR/DAR ratio found in this study are
similar to the ratio of PV power output loss to dust loading as
reported by other researchers in a laboratory study (El-
Shobokshy and Hussein, 1993). However, PV performance loss
due to dust loading is affected by several factors, including particle
size, chemical composition and the angle of solar incidence (El-
Shobokshy and Hussein, 1993; Zorrilla-Casanova et al., 2013). From
summer to winter, all these factors may vary and contribute to the
Table 3
Pearson correlation coefficient matrix for daily DAR and CICR with the different environmental variables.
DAR CICR
DAR 1
CICR
0.60* 1
PM10 0.41*
0.15
RH 0.33*
0.26
WS
0.35* 0.22
WD
0.09 0.08
*
Significant at p < 0.05 using 2-tailed t-test. The correlation analysis is based on the daily dust samples for 24-h exposure time and daily average values of other variables.
difference in the CICR/DAR ratio. Further investigation is needed to
provide a satisfactory explanation for this difference.
Daily DAR has a stronger correlation with environmental vari-
ables than does CICR, according to the correlation coefficients in
Table 3. DAR is a quantity that depends on PM10, WS, and RH,
whereas the CICR depends directly on DAR (and hence indirectly
on PM10, WS, and RH) and apparently other variables that are yet
to be determined. As reported in our previous study (Guo et al.,
2015), CICR was also negatively correlated with ambient PM con-
centration, positively correlated with WS, and negatively corre-
lated with RH. The data given in supplementary material also
showed a strong correlation between monthly cumulative dust
loading and monthly CICR. Overall, daily PV performance was
highly reduced on days with higher DAR levels. The data revealed
that the phenomenon of dust accumulation is extremely complex
and challenging to practically understand in the outdoor environ-
ment, given all the factors that influence dust accumulation.
3.2. Dust characteristics
3.2.1. Particle size distribution
The size distribution of accumulated dust particles depends on
the exposure time of PV modules to the outdoor environmental
conditions. Mean particle size of the accumulated dust was found
to decrease with increasing exposure time. The 90th percentile
(by volume) particle diameter of accumulated dust was 44, 36,
32 and 27 lm for 24-h, one-month, two-month and six-month
long exposure times, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6. Deposited
dust for 24-h exposure has a higher proportion of larger particles
(25–50 lm) and a median particle diameter of 17 lm, compared
to dust accumulated for one-month exposure having median parti-
cle size of 14 lm. For the six-month exposure, 90% (by volume) of
accumulated dust consists of particles smaller than 27 lm and has
median, mean, and mode particle diameters of 9, 13, and 16 lm,
respectively.
Month-by-month accumulated dust samples also show signifi-
cant variation in particle size distribution (Fig. 7). It was found that
mean particle size of accumulated dust was smaller in April and
May. This might be due to the higher wind speeds and lowest rel-
ative humidity during these two months (data given in the Supple-
mentary material). Mean particle size was larger in June and July,
which had more dust storms. Typically, 90% particles (by volume)
of dust are smaller than 36 lm on average for all month-long dust
samples. The volume-weighted mean and median particle sizes of
one-month accumulated samples vary within a broad range of 12–
25 and 9–16 lm, respectively. It was also observed that about 35%
of daily-deposited dust and 40% of monthly-deposited dust com-
prised particles smaller than 10 lm, which depicts the strong cor-
relation between DAR and airborne PM10 concentration (Table 3).
Overall, the size analysis indicates that the longer the exposure
time (i.e., the older the dust accumulation) of the PV panel sur-
faces, the higher proportion of smaller size particles as seen in
the case of six-month long dust sample. Mean and median particle
PM10 RH WS WD
1

0.17 1
0.19
0.39* 1

0.07
0.37* 0.48* 1
 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135
Fig. 6. Box plot showing particle size distribution of accumulated dust as a function
of exposure time.
Fig. 7. Box plot showing particle size distribution of accumulated dust by month-
long exposure time.
size in the accumulated dust was found to decrease with increasing
exposure time, with the 90th percentile particle size falling from
44 lm for 24-h exposure to 27 lm for six-month exposure. The
observed smaller grain-size particles suggest that the dust is orig-
inated mainly from local active construction or vehicular sites with
minimal contribution of the desert sand, which has larger grains.
Particle size plays a significant role in both dust settling and
resuspension of dust on a PV surface. The high tendency of resus-
pension of larger particles, even at moderate WS, results in a
greater fraction of smaller-sized particles in the accumulated dust
at longer exposure time. Boor et al. (2013) reported that multilayer
deposits show significantly higher resuspension than single layer
deposits. Furthermore, the bigger particles moving along the sur-
face after detachment strike stationary particles on the surface,
inducing further detachment (Kim et al., 2016). Fine dust particles
readily stick to the PV surfaces when there is no rain. This condi-
tion will be aggravated by high humidity to create a cementing
effect on the surfaces (Sayyah et al., 2014). Typically, we found that
95% (by volume) of accumulated dust particles lie in the 1–50 lm
diameter range. The higher accumulation of smaller-size particles
on tilted PV panels is due to the greater resuspension of larger par-
ticles from dry surfaces at higher WS. Other reports of outdoor
experiments also show that particle sizes of deposited dust on
the PV surface mostly lie in the range of 1–50 lm (Weber et al.,
2014).
Particle size is also an important factor in the accumulated
dust’s ability to scatter and attenuate solar irradiation. Therefore,
for the same dust loading (mass) on the PV surface, PV perfor-
129
mance degradation may be dependent on the particle size accumu-
lated. Finer particles may cause stronger degradation in PV
performance than larger particles, for the same mass loading
(Qasem et al., 2014). It is attributed to the fact that finer particles
have more specific surface area and distributed more uniformly as
compared to the coarser dust particles, thus reducing the voids
between the particles through which light can pass (El-
Shobokshy and Hussein, 1993; Tanesab et al., 2015). Smaller dust
particles scatter shorter wavelengths more than the bigger parti-
cles, result in more light attenuation, especially at shorter wave-
lengths, and this trend increases with accumulated dust mass
(Qasem et al., 2014). We anticipate that for particles of mixed size
distributions, smaller particles can fill the voids between large par-
ticles. Hence, the distribution becomes more packed, and further
reduces the available PV area for light capture.
In addition, the fundamental energy requirement for cleaning is
also dependent on particle size distribution of the deposited dust,
either mechanically or electrostatically. For example, Kawamoto
and Shibata (2015) reported a consistent drop in the dust removal
efficiency by an electrodynamic shield for smaller-size (<25 lm)
particles while larger (50–300 lm) particles are much easier to
remove. Other methods of cleaning are likely to encounter a simi-
lar decrease in cleaning efficiency as particle size distribution
decreases. For example, Appels et al. (2013) observed that bigger
dust particles (60 lm) seem to be more easily removed by rain
than smaller particles (2–10 lm). These impacts of particle sizes
highlight the importance of investigating the size characteristics
of deposited dust.
3.2.2. Dust chemical composition
The chemical composition of deposited dust has a significant
impact on particle adhesion with the glass surface and is conse-
quently essential for cleaning method designs, either mechanical,
electrodynamic, or the design of coating system (Horenstein
et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2005; Kazmerski et al., 2016). Informa-
tion on the chemical composition of dust will be useful for assess-
ing optical properties of the particles, or for determining the
motion of the particles in an electric field (John et al., 2016;
Mazumder et al., 2015). Knowledge of the chemical composition
of dust may also help to identify its origin.
XRD analysis of all 24-h and one-month accumulated dust sam-
ples show no significant variation in major mineral composition.
Typically, dust accumulated on modules for various exposure
times have a similar mineral composition, as illustrated in Fig. 8.
It was determined that calcite (CaCO3), dolomite (CaMg[CO3]2)
and quartz (SiO2) are the dominant minerals of all collected dust
samples. Both calcite and dolomite compounds accounted for more
than 70% of the dust particle contents in all one-month accumu-
lated samples (Fig. 9). The next most prevalent minerals are quartz
and gypsum, with the remainder other primary silicate minerals
(i.e., palygorskite, albite, cristobalite and kaolinite). Of these dom-
inant minerals, six-month accumulated dust has a high proportion
(15%) of gypsum (CaSO42H2O) compared to the 24-h, one-month
and two-month accumulated samples (Fig. 8).
High contents of calcite and dolomite in the dust mainly origi-
nate from local soils. Engelbrecht et al. (2009) reported that Qatar
and UAE soils mostly contain significant amounts of calcite (33–
48%) and dolomite minerals compared to other Gulf countries such
as Iraq and Kuwait, where soil has substantial amounts of quartz
and feldspar minerals. They also suggested that both Qatar and
the UAE receive wind-blown dust from the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq,
and Kuwait. Similarly, Kazmerski et al. (2016) analyzed the compo-
sition of deposited dust gathered from module surfaces in desert
regions of Middle East, i.e., Libya, Dhahran, Riyadh, and Baghdad
and found that the deposited dust is dominated by quartz, followed
by calcite and primary silicates (i.e., Feldspar and Muscovite). Aissa
130 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135
Fig. 8. Mineralogical composition by XRD analysis of accumulated dust as a
function of exposure time.
et al. (2016) and Yilbas et al. (2015) have also reported the high
content of calcite along with varying components of other silicate
minerals in dust particles collected from various locations in the
Middle East. So, it can be anticipated that dust mineralogy varies
substantially for various locations and climate zones in the region.
Fig. 9. Mineralogical composition by XRD analysis of monthly accumulated dust.
The dominant minerals, i.e., calcite and dolomite, are attributed to
construction activities in the local urban environment, as these are
associated with limestone, marble, Portland cement, and concrete.
Considering that Qatari soils are ‘‘Calcisols” and dominated by cal-
cite and dolomite minerals (Engelbrecht et al., 2009), wind erosion
from land and construction sites is likely to be the primary source
of dust deposited on PV module surfaces.
The dust particles elemental analysis by XRF for all collected
dust samples for various exposure times indicated that calcium
from calcite was the most abundant element, followed by silicon
from quartz and minor elements including iron, magnesium, alu-
minum, sodium and potassium (Fig. 10). All detected constituent
elements were matched to the corresponding phase identified by
XRD. The elements (Ca, Si, Fe, Mg and Al) are present in all dust
samples and mostly associated with natural soil crust, while
enriched in the coarse dust particles. The 24-h dust samples have
a relatively high proportion of Na and Cl elements originating
mainly from sea spray (Yilbas et al., 2015), compared to accumu-
lated dust samples associated with longer exposure times, suggest-
ing these elements are associated with large size particles. We
observed that 24-h accumulated dust has a high fraction of
larger-size particles. It is reported that mixing of dust particles
with sea salt systematically leads to the growth of particles and
dust particles become larger as more sea salt is mixed with them
(Zhang and Iwasaka, 2004). The sampling site is close to (approxi-
mately 10 km) to the Arabian Gulf so dust particles are likely
affected by sea salt. It was further evident that the 9-Feb dust
storm coming from the sea had very high fractions of these sea-
associated elements.
The six-month-long accumulated dust has relatively high con-
tent of sulfur (S), corresponding to gypsum, compared to dust sam-
ples of shorter exposure times (Fig. 10a). The S concentration can
be associated with Ca in the dust as gypsum. Moreover, it has been
reported that the absorption of SO2 via heterogeneous reaction on
the mineral dust, particularly CaCO3, is an important sink for SO2
and contributes to sulfate particle formation (Zhao et al., 2013).
 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135
Fig. 10. The comparison of the bulk elemental composition by XRF analysis of accumulated dust (a) by exposure time (b) by month.
So, it can be anticipated that deposited dust particles can age dur-
ing the long periods of exposure to SO2 in the atmosphere. In addi-
tion to natural minerals, traces of contaminating elements (Zn, Cu,
Ti, Ni, Cr) were also observed. The sampling site is located in an
urban area and surrounded by light vehicular traffic so may be
affected by contamination sources such as the resuspension of road
dust particles, vehicle fleet exhaust, brake and tire wear.
All collected dust samples were also analyzed by EDS and XPS to
determine the surface chemistry of particles. EDS and XPS results
(not shown) allowed us to compare and confirm the elemental
composition of the examined dust particles by XRF. The surface
analyses (EDS, XPS) did not show a substantial difference in ele-
mental composition of a dust sample when compared to the XRF
results. However, some differences were observed in S, K, Na, and
Cl concentrations, showing differences in bulk and surface concen-
trations. The surface analysis revealed slightly higher concentra-
tions of S, K, Na, and Cl, reflecting the association of these
elements with particle surfaces. This suggests that these hygro-
scopic species, present on the dust particle surface, render the par-
ticle are more likely to adhere to the glass and bind together to
agglomerate or form cement like films. In such process, soluble
materials on the surface of the particles are dissolved when
131
exposed to high humidity, morning dew, or light rain and then
upon drying formed a cementitious layer (Kazmerski et al., 2016;
Sarver et al., 2013).
3.2.3. Dust particle morphology
The SEM analysis indicated that dust particle morphology
changes with increasing exposure time. The dust particles took
irregular shapes in shorter exposure time samples. In longer expo-
sure time samples, particles tended to be agglomerated and cov-
ered by small features. Long-exposed dust samples had more
fine-size particles. The change in particle shape and size may result
in a change in chemical composition of dust particles (Yilbas et al.,
2015). Such particle morphology change with exposure time can
be seen in Fig. 11, which shows the images for 24-h, one-month,
and six-month accumulated dust samples.
The daily (24-h) dust-accumulated sample has bigger particles
and individual particles have rougher and clearer edges. Particles
are uniformly distributed on the copper tape, covering the whole
area without any identified particles cluster (Fig. 11a). The one-
month dust sample has more small size dust particles with a few
bigger ones with the size of >20 lm, compared to 24-h deposited
samples during the same month of accumulation. In the case of
132 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135

Fig. 11. The SEM images of dust samples deposited for (a) 24-h, (b) one-month and (c) six-month exposure periods, at 200 (1st column), 800 (2nd column) and 1600 (3rd
column) magnification.

six-month accumulated dust sample, there is a predominance of
finer (<10 lm) particles which have a tendency to agglomerate.
Most smaller particles are stuck together, forming numerous large
clusters. The few bigger particles (with the size of 17–22 lm) are
mostly covered with and surrounded by many smaller (<5 lm)
particles, forming large agglomerates (Fig. 11c).
The high proportion of smaller particles over an extended per-
iod of accumulation was due to the natural processes of resus-
pension by which larger size particles were removed by wind
or light rain. These results are in accordance with the earlier
results of particle size distribution. It was observed that more
particles appeared to be agglomerated and covered by small fea-
tures with longer accumulation time. It was reported that soluble
material on the particles’ surfaces (like Na, Cl, K, S, C) reacts with
moisture/humidity to be dissolved, which results in agglomera-
tion of grains into clusters (Kazmerski et al., 2016; Klugmann-
Radziemska, 2015). The dissolution of these alkali and alkaline
compounds results in the formation of a liquid solution (mud)
between particles, and upon drying it adheres the particles by
bridging the gaps/cavities in-between the dust particles (Yilbas
et al., 2015). This results in the cementation of dust particles with
the PV module surfaces especially in hot-humid conditions like
Doha. It is observed in the field that the six-month long exposed
module has a thick cement-like dust layer that is firmly bound to
the glass surface of the module. This cement film formed due to
the binding of the dust particles together as well as adhesion to
the glass surface, which is tough to remove, and required exten-
sive scraping.
 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135
Fig. 12. The comparison of particle size distribution of accumulated dust during the
normal days and dust-storm events.
3.3. Dust-storm episodes
Dust storms occur in this arid region of the Middle East. Dust
storms severely cause a reduction of visibility, decline of solar radi-
ation and, in consequence, reduce the output of solar devices. Eight
dust-storms (having daily mean PM10 concentration of
>200 lg m
3) were recorded during the study period (January–
October 2015). Of these, two are characterized and described in
this section, one occurring in the winter period on 9-Feb and
another in the summer time on 23-Jun. The first dust-storm event
had daily mean dust (PM10) concentration of 207 lg m
3 and the
second one 220 lg m
3. Dust mass accumulated during these dust
episode days was 762 and 266 mg m
2, respectively. As expected,
the dust mass accumulated on PV surfaces during the dust-storm
days was significantly higher than on normal days. It was also
observed that the 9-Feb dust storm resulted in more dust accumu-
lation on PV panels than the other one of 23-Jun, as it was accom-
panied by relatively the lower WS and higher RH - favorable
environmental conditions for the dust accumulation (data given
in the supplementary material). The corresponding cleanness
index change rate (CICR, a measure of PV performance due to soil-
ing) was found as
2.41% and
0.64% per day during these dust
event days, respectively.
Fig. 14. The comparison of the bulk elemental composition by XRF analysis of accumulated dust during the normal days and dust-storm events.
133
Fig. 13. The comparison of XRD patterns of the mineralogical composition of
accumulated dust during the normal days and dust-storm events.
During the dust storms, particle size of the dust accumulated on
the PV panels was quite different compared to normal days
(Fig. 12). More precisely, large size particles (30–60 lm) were
dominant in the case of dust storms, unlike in normal conditions.
On the normal days, smaller particles are more prevalent and big-
ger ones much rarer. Thus, particles deposited during dust storms
tended to be larger than those deposited on normal days.
One of the most interesting findings of dust characterization is
that the chemical composition of dust particles deposited on PV
panels during these dust-storm events was entirely different from
normal days (Fig. 13 and 14). These XRF and XRD observations
were corroborated by the SEM-EDS composition (data not shown).
Dust-storm particles have a high proportion of halite (NaCl) and
quartz (SiO2) in addition to calcite and dolomite minerals, depend-
ing upon the wind direction of the dust-storm event and, in turn,
the dust source. The dust storm on 9-Feb came from the Arabian
Gulf (140°; the SE direction) and had about 25% halite (NaCl)
134 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135
(originating from sea spray), and 13% quartz (SiO2). The dust storm
on 23-Jun came from the NW (315°) direction and had higher (21%)
quartz mineral and 7% halite mineral, as shown in Fig. 13. So, it can
be anticipated that dust source during these dust storms is not
local. The source of the 23-Jun dust storm is probably the
Arabian desert that is mainly comprised of quartz and calcite
(Engelbrecht et al., 2009; Kazmerski et al., 2016). The 9-Feb dust
storm most likely originated from the desert of UAE and showed
mixing of dust particles with sea spray that resulted in the increase
of sea-salt elements in the dust (Zhang and Iwasaka, 2004).
4. Conclusion
The rate of dust accumulation, DAR, reaches approximately
100 mg m
2 d
1 for a two-month exposure time, but its value
can be more than twice as high for short exposure times. The
90th percentile particle size (volume based) of the accumulated
dust is about 32 lm for two-month exposure, but this statistic gen-
erally decreases with increasing exposure time. Calcium was found
to be the most abundant element in the accumulated dust, fol-
lowed by silicon, iron, magnesium and aluminum. Calcite, dolo-
mite, and quartz were the dominant minerals in all accumulated
dust samples. Particle agglomeration occurs as the dust is allowed
to accumulate on the PV panel. The dust characterization results
will be helpful for understanding PV soiling in Qatar and regions
that share a similarity in ambient dust and weather conditions.
The data contained in this paper will be useful for prediction of
PV performance loss as based on environmental conditions and
development of optimum cleaning approach, which is of interest
to project developers and operators.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the Qatar National
Research Fund (QNRF) through a NPRP grant (Project No. 7-987-
2-372) and a UREP grant (Project No. 15-083-2-030).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.11.
053.
References
Adinoyi, M.J., Said, S.A.M., 2013. Effect of dust accumulation on the power outputs
of solar photovoltaic modules. Renew. Energy 60, 633–636.
Aissa, B., Isaifan, R.J., Madhavan, V.E., Abdallah, A.A., 2016. Structural and physical
properties of the dust particles in Qatar and their influence on the PV panel
performance. Sci. Rep. 6, 31467.
Appels, R., Lefevre, B., Herteleer, B., Goverde, H., Beerten, A., Paesen, R., De Medts, K.,
Driesen, J., Poortmans, J., 2013. Effect of soiling on photovoltaic modules. Sol.
Energy 96, 283–291.
Boor, B.E., Siegel, J.A., Novoselac, A., 2013. Monolayer and multilayer particle
deposits on hard surfaces: literature review and implications for particle
resuspension in the indoor environment. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 47 (8), 831–847.
Boppana, S., 2015. Outdoor Soiling Loss Characterization and Statistical Risk
Analysis of Photovoltaic Power Plants. Arizona State University.
Boyle, L., Flinchpaugh, H., Hannigan, M., 2016. Assessment of PM dry deposition on
solar energy harvesting systems: measurement–model comparison. Aerosol Sci.
Technol. 50 (4), 380–391.
Boyle, L., Flinchpaugh, H., Hannigan, M.P., 2015. Natural soiling of photovoltaic
cover plates and the impact on transmission. Renew. Energy 77, 166–173.
Caron, J.R., Littmann, B., 2013. Direct monitoring of energy lost due to soiling on first
solar modules in California. IEEE J. Photovolt. 3 (1), 336–340.
Darwish, Z.A., Kazem, H.A., Sopian, K., Al-Goul, M.A., Alawadhi, H., 2015. Effect of
dust pollutant type on photovoltaic performance. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
41, 735–744.
El-Shobokshy, M.S., Hussein, F.M., 1993. Effect of dust with different physical
properties on the performance of photovoltaic cells. Sol. Energy 51 (6), 505–
511.
Elminir, H.K., Ghitas, A.E., Hamid, R.H., El-Hussainy, F., Beheary, M.M., Abdel-
Moneim, K.M., 2006. Effect of dust on the transparent cover of solar collectors.
Energy Convers. Manage. 47 (18–19), 3192–3203.
Engelbrecht, J.P., McDonald, E.V., Gillies, J.A., Jayanty, R.K., Casuccio, G., Gertler, A.
W., 2009. Characterizing mineral dusts and other aerosols from the Middle East
– Part 2: grab samples and re-suspensions. Inhal. Toxicol. 21 (4), 327–336.
Figgis, B., Ennaoui, A., Guo, B., Javed, W., Chen, E., 2016. Outdoor soiling microscope
for measuring particle deposition and resuspension. Sol. Energy 137, 158–164.
Guo, B., Javed, W., Figgis, B., Mirza, T., 2015. Effect of dust and weather conditions on
photovoltaic performance in Doha, Qatar. In: First Workshop on Smart Grid and
Renewable Energy (SGRE). IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Hegazy, A.A., 2001. Effect of dust accumulation on solar transmittance through glass
covers of plate-type collectors. Renew. Energy 22 (4), 525–540.
Horenstein, M.N., Mazumder, M.K., Sumner, R.C., Stark, J., Abuhamed, T., Boxman, R.,
2013. Modeling of trajectories in an electrodynamic screen for obtaining
maximum particle removal efficiency. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 49 (2), 707–713.
Ibrahim, A.H., Dunn, P.F., Brach, R.M., 2004. Microparticle detachment from surfaces
exposed to turbulent air flow: effects of flow and particle deposition
characteristics. J. Aerosol Sci. 35 (7), 805–821.
Jiang, H., Lu, L., Sun, K., 2011. Experimental investigation of the impact of airborne
dust deposition on the performance of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules. Atmos.
Environ. 45 (25), 4299–4304.
John, J.J., Warade, S., Tamizhmani, G., Kottantharayil, A., 2016. Study of soiling loss
on photovoltaic modules with artificially deposited dust of different gravimetric
densities and compositions collected from different locations in India. IEEE J.
Photovolt. 6 (1), 236–243.
Johnson, C., Srirama, P., Sharma, R., Pruessner, K., Zhang, J., Mazumder, M., 2005.
Effect of particle size distribution on the performance of electrodynamic
screens. In: Conference Record of the Industry Applications Conference, 2005.
Fourteenth IAS Annual Meeting. IEEE, pp. 341–345.
Jones, R.K., Baras, A., Al Saeeri, A., Al Qahtani, A., Al Amoudi, A.O., Al Shaya, Y.,
Alodan, M., Al-Hsaien, S.A., 2016. Optimized cleaning cost and schedule based
on observed soiling conditions for photovoltaic plants in central Saudi Arabia.
IEEE J. Photovolt. 6 (3), 730–738.
Kaldellis, J.K., Fragos, P., 2011. Ash deposition impact on the energy performance of
photovoltaic generators. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (4), 311–317.
Kaldellis, J.K., Fragos, P., Kapsali, M., 2011. Systematic experimental study of the
pollution deposition impact on the energy yield of photovoltaic installations.
Renew. Energy 36 (10), 2717–2724.
Kaldellis, J.K., Kapsali, M., 2011. Simulating the dust effect on the energy
performance of photovoltaic generators based on experimental
measurements. Energy 36 (8), 5154–5161.
Kaldellis, J.K., Kokala, A., 2010. Quantifying the decrease of the photovoltaic panels’
energy yield due to phenomena of natural air pollution disposal. Energy 35 (12),
4862–4869.
Kawamoto, H., Shibata, T., 2015. Electrostatic cleaning system for removal of sand
from solar panels. J. Electrostat. 73, 65–70.
Kazmerski, L.L., Diniz, A.S.A., Maia, C.B., Viana, M.M., Costa, S.C., Brito, P.P., Campos,
C.D., Neto, L.V.M., de Morais Hanriot, S., de Oliveira Cruz, L.R., 2016.
Fundamental studies of the adhesion of dust to PV module chemical and
physical relationships at the microscale. IEEE J. Photovolt. 6 (3), 719–729.
Khatib, T., Kazem, H., Sopian, K., Buttinger, F., Elmenreich, W., Albusaidi, A.S., 2013.
Effect of dust deposition on the performance of multi-crystalline photovoltaic
modules based on experimental measurements. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 3 (4),
850–853.
Kim, Y., Wellum, G., Mello, K., Strawhecker, K.E., Thoms, R., Giaya, A., Wyslouzil, B.E.,
2016. Effects of relative humidity and particle and surface properties on particle
resuspension rates. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 50 (4), 339–352.
Klugmann-Radziemska, E., 2015. Degradation of electrical performance of a
crystalline photovoltaic module due to dust deposition in northern Poland.
Renew. Energy 78, 418–426.
Mani, M., Pillai, R., 2010. Impact of dust on solar photovoltaic (PV) performance:
research status, challenges and recommendations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
14 (9), 3124–3131.
Mastekbayeva, G., Kumar, S., 2000. Effect of dust on the transmittance of low
density polyethylene glazing in a tropical climate. Sol. Energy 68 (2), 135–141.
Mazumder, M.K., Horenstein, M.N., Heiling, C., Stark, J.W., Sayyah, A., Yellowhair, J.,
Raychowdhury, A., 2015. Environmental degradation of the optical surface of PV
modules and solar mirrors by soiling and high RH and mitigation methods for
minimizing energy yield losses. In: 42nd Photovoltaic Specialist Conference
(PVSC). IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Pulipaka, S., Mani, F., Kumar, R., 2016. Modeling of soiled PV module with neural
networks and regression using particle size composition. Sol. Energy 123, 116–
126.
Qasem, H., Betts, T.R., Müllejans, H., AlBusairi, H., Gottschalg, R., 2014. Dust-induced
shading on photovoltaic modules. Progr. Photovolt.: Res. Appl. 22 (2), 218–226.
Quesnel, D.J., Rimai, D.S., Schaefer, D.M., Beaudoin, S.P., Harrison, A., Hoss, D., Sweat,
M., Thomas, M., 2015. Aspects of particle adhesion and removal. In: Kohli, R.,
Mittal, K.L. (Eds.), Developments in Surface Contamination and Cleaning,
Fundamentals and Applied Aspects, vol. 1. Elsevier Inc., San Diego, CA, USA,
pp. 119–145.
Said, S.A.M., Walwil, H.M., 2014. Fundamental studies on dust fouling effects on PV
module performance. Sol. Energy 107, 328–337.
Saidan, M., Albaali, A.G., Alasis, E., Kaldellis, J.K., 2016. Experimental study on the
effect of dust deposition on solar photovoltaic panels in desert environment.
Renew. Energy 92, 499–505.
 W. Javed et al. / Solar Energy 142 (2017) 123–135
Sarver, T., Al-Qaraghuli, A., Kazmerski, L.L., 2013. A comprehensive review of the
impact of dust on the use of solar energy: history, investigations, results,
literature, and mitigation approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22, 698–
733.
Sayyah, A., Horenstein, M.N., Mazumder, M.K., 2014. Energy yield loss caused by
dust deposition on photovoltaic panels. Sol. Energy 107, 576–604.
Sulaiman, S.A., Hussain, H.H., Leh, N., Razali, M.S., 2011. Effects of dust on the
performance of PV panels. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 58, 588–593.
Tanesab, J., Parlevliet, D., Whale, J., Urmee, T., Pryor, T., 2015. The contribution of
dust to performance degradation of PV modules in a temperate climate zone.
Sol. Energy 120, 147–157.
Weber, B., Quinones, A., Almanza, R., Duran, M.D., 2014. Performance reduction of
PV systems by dust deposition. Energy Procedia 57, 99–108.
View publication stats
135
Yilbas, B.S., Ali, H., Khaled, M.M., Al-Aqeeli, N., Abu-Dheir, N., Varanasi, K.K., 2015.
Influence of dust and mud on the optical, chemical, and mechanical properties
of a PV protective glass. Sci. Rep. 5, 15833.
Zhang, D.Z., Iwasaka, Y., 2004. Size change of Asian dust particles caused by sea salt
interaction: measurements in southwestern Japan. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31 (15).
Zhao, Y., Chen, Z., Shen, X., Huang, D., 2013. Heterogeneous reactions of gaseous
hydrogen peroxide on pristine and acidic gas-processed calcium carbonate
particles: effects of relative humidity and surface coverage of coating. Atmos.
Environ. 67, 63–72.
Zorrilla-Casanova, J., Piliougine, M., Carretero, J., Bernaola-Galván, P., Carpena, P.,
Mora-López, L., Sidrach-de-Cardona, M., 2013. Losses produced by soiling in the
incoming radiation to photovoltaic modules. Progr. Photovolt.: Res. Appl. 21,
790–796.