Solar Energy Vol. 44, No. I, pp. 43-..49, 1990 0038-092X/90 $3.00 + .

00
Prinu:d in the U.S.A. Copyright ~ 1990 Pergamon Press ple

THE STEADY-STATE PERFORMANCE OF A SOLAR STILL

JLM A. CLARK
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, West Palm Beach, FL, U.S.A.

Abstract--The predicted steady-state performance of a single-effect solar still has been in the technical
literature and solar energy textbooks for some time, but recent measurements of steady-state solar still
efficiencies and temperatures appear in conflict with earlier, apparently similar measurements which
partially support the long-standing theory. This paper reviews that controversy and offers new experi-
mental evidence which is used as a basis for altering Dunkle's original model.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N ~s = basin emissivity (infrared)

= glass emissivity (infrared)
The predicted steady-state performance of a single- ~s
= modified convection coefficient ( W / m z K)
effect solar still has been in the technical literature[ 1 - hl
12] and solar energy textbooks[13-16] for some time, tr = Stefan-Boltzman constant
= basin water saturation pressure (atm)
but recent measurements[6,7] of steady-state solar still Pw"
efficiencies and temperatures appear in conflict with Pw~ = condensate saturation pressure (atm)
earlier, apparently similar measurements[12] which hf~
= heat of vaporization (kJ/kg)
partially support the long-standing theory. This paper
k, = insulation conductivity ( W / m K)
reviews that controversy and offers new experimental Ai/A, = insulation area normalized by basin area
evidence which is used as a basis for altering Dun- xi = insulation thickness (m)
kle's original model. T~, = ambient temperature (K)
.70 = mass transfer-heat transfer proportionality
constant (kg K / a t m kJ).
2. C A L C U L A T I O N O F S T E A D Y - S T A T E E F F I C I E N C Y
For the glass, energy is received from the basin,
Based in part on Sharpley and Boelter's[17] experi- and some solar energy is absorbed directly. The glass
ments with the evaporation of water into quiescent sheds its energy to the surroundings through convec-
air, Dunkle[1] first outlined the steady-state thermal tion and radiation. Again, assuming equal areas for
model for a solar still. Malik et al.[13] explain the the basin and cover glass (valid when the cover glass
mathematical development of the model in detail, so is only slightly inclined with the horizontal), the en-
it is not repeated here except to highlight certain as- ergy flux to and from the glass is
sumptions and the convection-diffusion relationship.
The model consists of two energy flux b a l a n c e s - - cr(T~ - T])
+ hi(T, - T z)
one for the water basin and one for the cover glass. I I
Input to the basin is solar energy transmitted by the --+---I
¢-s ~-t
glass and absorbed by the basin. The basin energy
output is radiation, convection and evaporation di- + 0.70 hi(P,, - Pwg) h/g + 1o%
rected to the glass, and conduction through the still = ~scr(T~ - T 4-) + h~,(T s - T~,) (2)
walls and bottom. Thus, assuming equal areas for the
basin and the glass cover, the energy flux balance for where
the basin is
% = glass absorptivity (solar)
cr(T~ - r~)
Io "rseq = 1 1 + h'(T~ - Ts) h~ = ambient convection coefficient .
-+---1
Because the current experiment was done in a lab-
+ 0.70 hi(Pw, - P,s) hfs +/~iAi (1) oratory, the sink temperature for glass heat loss is
xiAs (7", - T=), modeled as the ambient temperature. For a solar still
operated out of doors, the sink temperature would be
where the sky temperature.
These two energy balances are two equations in
Io = solar flux ( W / m 2) the two unknowns, 7", and Tz. A simultaneous, iter-
x s = glass transmissivity (solar) ative solution yields the basin and glass tempera-
et, = basin absorptivity (solar) tures, following which the still steady-state efficiency
7", = basin temperature (K) can be calculated as evaporation heat flux divided by
Tg = glass temperature (K) incoming solar flux.

43
44
0.70 h" (P~., - Pwg) his
~q =
Io
As background, the term, hl, appearing in all three
equations is a modified heat transfer coefficient, de-
rived by Sharpley and Boelter[17] to describe the
similarity relationship between diffusion mass trans-
fer and natural convection heat transfer. They de-
fined a modified convective heat transfer coefficient
hl = 0.89 (AT') ''3
where AT' is a temperature difference, modified from
that appearing in the typical Grashoff number defi-
nition (see Malik et al.[ 13] for details). Evaporative
mass flux can then be related to h" via
m,'" = 0.70 h~' (Pw, - Pwg)
and evaporative heat flux is the product of heat of
vaporization and evaporative mass flux.
This paper focuses in part on the choice of con-
stant (which is not dimensionless) in the equation for
evaporative mass flux. The value of 0.70 has been
widely advertised[I,12-16] but some sources have
suggested that it should be halved[2,7]. In the re-
mainder of this paper, previous steady-state data from
simulated solar stills is compared with the calcula-
J. A. CLARK
tions of Dunkle's long-standing model. Then, ex-
(3) perimental results from the current work are pre-
sented and shown to agree with Dunkle's model only
after that model is modified to halve the constant in
the evaporative mass flux equation.
3. PREVIOUS STEADY-STATE EXPERIMENTS
Baum and Bairamov[l 1], and Cooper[12] have con-
ducted experiments using insulated enclosures whose
basin water was electrically heated and whose con-
(4) densing surfaces were water-cooled brass or copper.
Cooper's results, which overlap and extend beyond
Baum's and Bairamov's data, appear to support Dun-
lde's model at low insolation fluxes, as shown in Fig.
1. However, some explanatory notes are required for
Fig. 1 because Cooper reported temperatures and
evaporative mass fluxes rather than steady-state ef-
(5) ficiencies, and because not all of Cooper's data are
shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, the exact location of
the analytical curve calculated from Dunkle's origi-
nal model depends on assumptions regarding ambient
temperature, insulation type and thickness, basin ab-
sorptivity and glass transmitivity in the solar spec-
trum, and basin emissivity and glass emissivity in the
infrared; those assumptions are listed on Fig. 1.
Cooper's data covered a wide range of water heat
fluxes, some much larger than can actually be ob-
tained by a non-concentrating solar collector. To

/~Ts = 70°C
.70 iI
I•
J
/'

i•
.65

.60
e-.
///" ~ - 74° C -
"f3
LLI .55 /// / Dunkle Constants
,
/
,' / ^
0
TAMa= 27°(3
, /arTs =51aC ~G--.87
t,'/,~___ . . . . . Ct
eta = .0S
.50 X -86
e~ Ts =42"C as = .86
// ~ = .90
/ / Well-Insulated
.45 / NO Breeze

/
.40
/ Ts = 33°C

I I I I
159 317 635 952

Solar Flux (-~2)

Fig. 1. Comparison of Cooper data, original Dunkle model.

 The steady-state performance of a solar still
compare with data from the current study, Fig. 1 ex-
cludes any of Cooper's data which are beyond the
range of insolation fluxes available in a single-effect
solar still which collects its own heat. In addition,
several of Cooper's evaporative mass fluxes pertain
to evaporation-condensation temperature differences
which are greater than a maximum of 17°C measured
and predicted for such stills[5,6,7]; these data are also
excluded from Fig. 1. To convert Cooper's remain-
ing data to steady-state efficiencies, the product of
evaporative mass flux and heat of vaporization is di-
vided by apparent insolation flux, which is the result
of dividing Cooper's electrical heat flux by the prod-
uct of basin absorptivity, cq, and glass transmissivity,
r t, in the solar spectrum. The values of eq and "rg used
to convert Cooper's data are the same as those used
to generate Dunkle's curve in Fig. 1. If other values
of glass transmissivity and basin absorptivity had been
used in converting Cooper's data and in making the
Dunkle model calculations, the two curves in Fig. 1
would both be vertically shifted, but their relation-
ship to one another would be unchanged.
Two explanations are offered as to why Cooper's
data do not match Dunkle's original model at mod-
erate-to-high heating fluxes, and both are related to
the suggestion that Cooper's experimental apparatus
may not have truly reproduced conditions within a
single-effect solar still. First, Cooper used an im-
mersible electric heater as an energy source in his
experiment. Though the heater's geometry was de-
signed to distribute the heat throughout the water ba-
sin, the possibility that Cooper's basin of water ex-
perienced local boiling above the immersed heater
(while the average water temperature was well below
the boiling point) cannot be ignored. If local boiling
were present, it would be expected to be most prom-
inent at moderate-to-high heat fluxes, and it would
produce the higher-than-expected efficiencies dis-
played by Cooper's converted data in Fig. 1, because
vapor in bubbles rising from the heating coil would
escape the water basin without being captured and
condensed by cooler water away from the coil.
Second, Cooper's use of a metallic condensing
surface (in place of glass) may have suppressed what
is normally a significant infrared radiation loss from
the basin to the condensing surface, because unoxi-
dized metals normally have much lower infrared ab-
sorptivities than does glass. An uncertainty regarding
this second comment on Cooper's apparatus concerns
the presence of a water film on the condensing sur-
face. If the film were uniform, its infrared absorp-
tivity might be expected to alter the radiative prop-
erties of the condensing surface. However,
observations from the current experiments are that a
thin film of water does not cover the condensing sur-
face in a single-effect solar still; the surface is only
partially wetted because of the droplets and rivulets
(caused by water's high surface tension) that char-
acterize the water condensation process. Thus,
suppression of infrared radiation from the basin by
the low absorptivity of Cooper's metallic condensing
45
surface remains a possibility in Cooper's apparatus.
As with the effect of local boiling, such suppression
of radiation would augment evaporation and convec-
tion, leading to abnormally high steady-state effi-
ciencies like Cooper's converted data shown in Fig.
1. Cooper's radiation equation (his Equation (I)) tac-
itly assumed that the infrared absorptivity of the con-
densing surface was unity; thus, Cooper's correlation
of his data did not consider this suggestion of radia-
tion suppression by the metal condensing surface. In
contrast, the present analysis includes the infrared
emissivities of both the basin and the cover glass.
4. EXPERIMENTALAPPARATUSFOR THE PRESENT
STUDY
The solar still used in the present study is a single-
effect, shallow-basin type, with a single glass cover,
sloped at an angle of 15 degrees with the horizontal.
The square, aluminum basin has an area of 0.177 m s
and a depth of approximately 2.5 cm. The sides and
bottom of the still are a sandwich of two 0.63-cm
sheets of plywood surrounding a 1.27-cm air gap.
Condensate is collected in a vee-shaped copper trough
attached to the lowest edge of the glass. To allow
inspection of the interior, the sides and cover glass
separate as a unit from the bottom. In the joint be-
tween the two halves is a silicone (caulk) gasket to
eliminate both air infiltration and water-vapor es-
cape. The interior walls are coated with high-gloss,
white, epoxy paint to reflect most of the incoming
insolation onto the fiat-black water basin, and to pro-
tect the plywood walls from steam damage. A ther-
mocouple beneath the pan measures the basin water
temperature. Though direct temperature measure-
ment of the basin water would in principle be more
accurate, the thermocouple was placed beneath the
pan, rather than in the water, to eliminate the error
which would be incurred by exposing the thermo-
couple to the direct radiation from the light source.
For the same reason, the temperature of the cover
glass was not measured. The sides and bottom of the
still are insulated with 7.6 cm of extruded polysty-
rene, whose thermal conductivity is nearly identical
to that of stagnant air.
A solar simulator is the energy source for this still.
The simulator is a bank of 30 incandescent spot-
lights, 18 of which are 150 W and 12 of which are
75 W, and the bulbs are arranged in six rows of five
lights each, with a dimmer switch controlling each
row. A sketch of the simulator is shown in Fig. 2,
and a more complete description of the simulator is
found elsewhere[19,20]. The arrangement of large
and small bulbs on the simulator was selected on the
basis of flux uniformity and dimmer-switch power
limitations. Previous experiments[6] have shown that
the day-long performance of the current still oper-
ating under this solar simulator is the same as its per-
formance under actual sunlight. Though the tungsten
filaments in the spotlights emit a greater percentage
of their light in the infrared than does the sun, the
46 J. A. CLARK
oO0@e
o000o
o 00
20cm
o0o
oCo0o,0 0
o oT
J a breeze on still performance. Preliminary work[7]
Fig. 2. Sketch of solar simulator.
glass bulbs of the spotlights intercept all wavelengths
longer than three microns. Infrared radiation from the
glass bulbs themselves to the solar still is blocked by
a separate pane of glass placed between the solar sim-
ulator and the glass cover of the solar still. This in-
tervening pane is kept at room temperature by a fan.
Thus, the only radiation reaching the still is at wave-
lengths within the solar spectrum.
A diagram of the test setup for measuring still ef-
ficiency is shown in Fig. 3. The entire experiment is
situated in a laboratory whose temperature is main-
tained at 22.5°C. Each efficiency test is started with
SOLAR SIMULATOR
/ After steady state is reached (usually 3-5 hours
Y-
illlxi'l °-,,
Fig. 3. Testing arrangement.
a cleaning of the cover glass and a rinsing of the ba-
sin. After water is added to the basin, the upper and
lower halves of the still are joined, polystyrene in-
sulation is attached, weights are added to the top of
the still (to compress the silicone gasket), and the
solar simulator is turned on. Once the dimmer switches
have been adjusted to approximately produce the de-
sired insolation level, readings of the radiation flux
falling on the cover glass are taken at five locations
on the cover glass--one at the center, and one at each
of the four comers. The solar flux is adjusted so that
individual flux readings arc within 10% of the av-
erage radiation flux on the surface. The still is taken
to be at steady state when the therrnocouple shows
that the basin water temperature is changing by less
than 0.5°C per hour.
As Fig. 3 shows, a 51-cm box fan was originally
located near the solar still to investigate the effect of
showed that the absence of a breeze worsened the
still's efficiency. However, once the still was prop-
erly sealed to block air infiltration and water-vapor
escape, the experimental trends reversed so that the
still's best performance was always obtained in a "no-
breeze" situation. Though the present work included
operation of the still with and without an external
breeze, only the no-breeze results are presented herein,
for two reasons. First, the velocity profile from the
fan was highly nonuniform--therefore characterizing
the wind speed was difficult. Second, according to
work by Test et a/.[21], laboratory breezes are much
different from true breezes in their effects on external
heat transfer coefficients. In short, though the ex-
periments with the present solar still subjected to a
breeze produced a smooth curve of efficiency versus
insolation flux, the precision of the wind speed was
unknown. Suffice it to say that a breeze of less than
2 m / s has been measured to reduce the steady-state
efficiency of a solar still by two-to-six percentage
points, with the greater reduction corresponding to
high temperature operation.
after startup), the condensate production is measured
every half hour for the next 1.5 hours. At the end of
the test, readings of insolation flux falling on the still
are again taken at the five locations already de-
scribed. The experimental steady-state efficiency ot
the still is then calculated according to
mhfg
where
"q io Ag At
{6
m = mass of condensate (gm) collected in a tim{
interval
hlg = heat of vaporization (J/gin)
]o = Insolation flux (five-reading average, W / m 2
Ag = Glass area (m 2)
At = Time interval (see).
 The steady-state performance of a solar still 47

.65 ~MS = 22"5°C 's - ~~,,,,,~¢

:~ .60 r~. 70°c-.----_,./' .--_.-"

e- , ~/ o f _........ -" - Ts = 91 ° C

tu .55

/ ,/ D_uunkl_eModel
~ .50 .... . 8r

/ .~7 Cs = .88
,,~/ Co .90
.45 / t~ = .05
iI
iI
Well-Insulated
Ts = 55°C NO Breeze
I I I I I I
159 317 635 952

Solar Flux (-~2)

Fig. 4. Comparison of current data, original Dunkle model.

5. RESULTSAND DISCUSSION modified to include eqn (7) in place of eqn (5), is

shown in Fig. 5. This comparison demonstrates that
Steady-state efficiencies and basin temperatures are
the inclusion of eqn (7) brings predicted temperatures
reported in Fig. 4 for a well-insulated solar still op-
to within 3°C and predicted efficiencies to within two
erating under solar simulator radiation fluxes be-
percentage points of their experimental counterparts,
tween 315 and 1000 W / m 2, with no external breeze,
while reasonable assumptions are retained regarding
in a laboratory whose ambient temperature is 22.5°C.
basin absorptivity and glass transmissivity.
The efficiencies vary from 42% to 60%, and the ba-
A pertinent side comment is brought up by the
sin temperatures fall in the range from 55°C to 91°C.
fact that basin water temperatures at high insolation
Also shown in Fig. 4 are the efficiency and temper-
fluxes approach and can exceed 95°C, meaning that
ature predictions (solid curve) of Dunkle's original
the bulk gas within a still can be almost entirely water
model. As is evident in the figure, Dunkle's effi-
vapor. Under these circumstances, the modified heat
ciencies are consistently above the experimental data,
transfer coefficient developed by Sharpley and Boel-
and Dunkle's temperatures are for the most part be-
ter (eqn (4)) would presumably revert to a standard
low their experimental counterparts. At first glance,
definition, using the properties of water vapor rather
it appears that the predictions could be made to better
than air. Such a reversion reduces the values of both
match the experimental results by lowering the as-
the convective heat transfer coefficient[18] and (if eqn
sumed values for glass transmissivity and/or basin
(6) continues to hold) the mass transfer coefficient,
absorptivity. While this strategy would indeed bring
leading to a steady-state efficiency prediction below
predicted efficiencies into better agreement with the
that from Dunkle's modified model. However, De-
measured values, it would simultaneously increase
vuono[22] among others, has shown that mass trans-
the disparity between measured and predicted basin
fer coefficients associated with a change of phase are
temperatures. To bring both predicted temperatures
strongly dependent on the percentage of nonconden-
and efficiencies into closer accord with the measured
sible gases present, especially when those noncon-
values, Dunkle's constant relating the evaporative mass
densibles are present in small concentrations. In other
flux to the modified convective heat transfer coeffi-
words, a mass transfer coefficient increase caused by
cient in eqn (5) must be halved
the purging of air from the still at high temperatures
may offset the simultaneous reduction in the internal
th~ = 0.35 h" (Pws - Pwg), (7) convective heat transfer coefficient, such that the
modified Dunkle model is accurate at high still tem-
as has been suggested previously[2,4,6,7]. peratures, even though some of Dunkle's assump-
A comparison of the experimental steady-state re- tions do not apply. An additional consideration is that
suits with the revised predictions from Dunkle's model, as the basin water approaches its boiling point, tiny
48
.65
Modified Ounkle Model
te = .87
G.S = .88
¢J .60 ~S = .88
<D ¢¢G = .05
~G = .90
LU
.55 Well-insulated
No Breeze
:>~
u) .50
Ts = 58°C
.45
" X ~ / ~ T s = 55 ° C
I I
159 317
Solar Flux ( - ~ 2 )
Fig. 5. Comparison of current data, modified Dunkle model,
bubbles form on and remain attached to the bottom
of the basin. The reflectivity and the number of these
bubbles is perceived to be high enough to appreciably
lower the basin absorptivity at elevated temperatures.
Nonetheless, as is evident in Fig. 5, the modified
Dunkle model remains an accurate indicator of steady-
state efficiencies and basin temperatures over the en-
tire range of realistic insolation fluxes incident on a
single-effect solar still.
6. CONCLUSIONS
1. The steady-state efficiency of a well-insulated,
single-effect, solar still operating under solar sim-
ulator radiation fluxes from 315 to 1000 W / m 2,
with no external breeze, in a laboratory whose
ambient temperature is 22.5°C, ranges from 42%
to 60%. Under the same conditions, steady-state
basin water temperatures fall between 55°C and
95°C.
2. A breeze of less than 2 m / s has been measured
to reduce the steady-state efficiencies of a well-
sealed, well-insulated solar still by two-to-six per-
centage points, compared to no-breeze efficien-
cies, with the greater reduction corresponding to
high temperature operation.
3. Dunkle's original model, modified to use a mass
transfer-modified heat transfer coefficient ratio
equal to one-half of Dunkle's original ratio, ac-
curately models both steady-state efficiency and
basin water temperature in a single-effect solar still.
4. Explanations for the underprediction of Coop-
er's[12] efficiencies by Dunkle's original model
are that Cooper's experimental apparatus may have
.J.A. CLARK
Ts =91°C
/~~
o
~ T~=74° C T,~ = 22 5~C
I I T I
635 952
suppressed internal infrared radiation loss, and it
may have promoted local boiling in the water basin.
5. At high insolation fluxes, the bulk gas within a
solar still can be almost entirely water vapor in-
stead of air. Also, bubbles form on and attach to
the basin bottom. These two phenomena invali-
date some of the assumptions and conclusions of
Dunkle's original model as well as its modified
version. But, the expected decrease in perfor-
mance due to a lower basin absorptivity, and a
lower Grashoff number (based on water vapor in-
stead of air) is apparently offset by an increase in
the mass transfer coefficient which has been shown
to accompany a reduction in the concentration of
noncondensible gases. Thus, the modified Dunkle
model remains accurate over the entire range of
solar still operating conditions.
Acknowledgments--The author wishes to thank John W.
Barker of the Mechanical Engineering department at Ohio
State University for constructing the still described herein.
Also, the insightful preliminary calculations done by James
A. Schrader are appreciated. Finally, the author is grateful
to the many senior undergraduate engineering students who
aided in obtaining the solar still data.
REFERENCES
1. R. V. Dunkle, Solar Water Distillation: The roof type
still and a multiple effect diffusion still, 1961 Inter-
national Heat Transfer Conference, Part V, pp. 895-
902, Boulder, CO (1961).
2. G. O. G. L6f, J. A. Eibling, and J. W. Bloemer, En-
ergy balances in solar distillers, A . I . C H . E . J . 7, 6 4 0 -
649 (1961).
3. R. N. Morse and W. R. W. Read, A rational basis for
 The steady-state performance of a solar still
the engineering development of a solar still, Solar En-
ergy 12, 5-17 (1969).
4. G. O. G. L6f, Correspondence regarding "A rational
basis for the engineering development of a solar still,"
Solar Energy 12 547-549 (1969).
5. P. I. Cooper, The maximum efficiency of single-effect
solar stills, Solar Energy 15, 205-217 (1973).
6. J. A. Clark, C. A. Abbott, J. Meeks, and D. Mc-
Allister, Solar still performance under a solar simu-
lator, Alternate Energy Sources VI, 1, Solar Energy
and Applications, pp. 407-418, Hemisphere, Wash-
ington (1985).
7. J. A. Clark, Predicted and measured solar still per-
formance under a solar simulator, Proceedings of the
Joint ASME-ASEE Solar Energy Conference, pp. 110-
116, Knoxville, TN (1985).
8. Batelle Memorial Institute, Final three years progress
on study and field evaluation of solar sea water stills,
Office of Saline Water Report No. 190 (1966).
9. P. Ii Cooper, Digital simulation of transient solar still
processes, Solar Energy 12, 313-331 (1969).
10. P. I. Cooper, The absorption of radiation in solar stills,
Solar Energy 12, 333-346 (1969).
11. V. A. Baum and R. Bairamov, Heat and mass transfer
processes in solar stills of the hotbox type, Solar En-
ergy 8, 78-82 (1964).
12. P. I. Cooper, Heat and mass transfer within a solar
still envelope, ISES Congress, The Sun in the Service
of Mankind, Part II, E49, Paris (1973).
13. M. A. S. Malik, G. N. Tiwari, A. Kumar, and M. S.
49
Sodha, Solar Distillation, Pergamon, Oxford pp. 8-15
(1982).
14. F. Kreith and J. K.reider, Principles of Solar Engi-
neering, pp. 542-552, Hemisphere, Washington (1978).
15. J. A. Duffle and W. A. Beckman, Solar engineering
of thermal processes, Wiley, New York, pp. 642-646
(1980).
16. E. E. Anderson, Fundamentals of solar energy con-
version, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 371-378
(1983).
17. B. F. Sharpley and L. M. K. Boelter, Evaporation of
water into quiescent air, Indus. Eng. Chem. 30 (1938).
18. F. Kreith, Principles of heat transfer, Third Edition,
Intext, New York pp. 607-608 (1973).
19. J. A. Clark, An indoor solar energy lab, Mech. Engg.
104, 40-43 (1982).
20. J. A. Clark and D. J. Stelzer, A low cost solar sim-
ulator for student laboratories and special projects, Engg.
Educ. 73, 175-177 (1982).
21. F. L. Test, R. C. Lessman, and A. Johary, Heat trans-
fer during wind flows over rectangular bodies in the
natural environment, J. Heat Transfer 103, 262 (1981).
22. A. C. DeVuono, Pressure effects on the film conden-
sation of air mixtures with application to nuclear sys-
tems, Ph.D. Thesis, p. 63, Department of Nuclear En-
gineering, The Ohio State University (1983).
23. J. A. Clark and J. A. Schrader, An improved model
for steady-state heat and mass transfer within a solar
still, ASME paper no. 85-WA/SOL-2, Miami Beach,
FL (1985).