1Continuous Flow Solar Thermal Pasteurization of Drinking Water: Methods, Devices,

2Microbiology, and Analysis

3
4J.P. Abraham1,a
5B.D. Plourdea
6W.J.Minkowyczb
7
8aUniversity of St. Thomas
9School of Engineering
102115 Summit Ave
11St. Paul, MN 55105-1079
121Corresponding author: jpabraham@stthomas.edu
13
14bUniversity of Illinois, Chicago
15Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
162039 Engineering Research Facility
17842 W. Taylor St.
18Chicago, IL 60607
19
20Abstract
21 The ability to simply and robustly pasteurize drinking water would present tremendous
22worldwide human health benefits. Ingestion of unsafe drinking water is a leading cause of
23sickness and death in the developing world. A simple method to use concentrated solar power is
24presented here with two complimentary numerical models. The first model allows a prediction
25of water temperatures within the concentrator and enables a user to vary operating parameters to
26assess the impact on the temperatures. The second model relates the temperatures to pathogen
27inactivation kinetics so that predictions of pathogen populations can be made. It is found that
28with a modest size system that includes a parabolic trough concentrator, a thermally activated
29valve, and a fluid-to-fluid heat exchanger, near complete pathogen inactivation can be achieved.
30
31Keywords
32Thermal pasteurization, solar concentration, clean water, renewable energy,
33
341. Introduction
35 Ingestion of pathogens through drinking water is a significant global health risk particularly in
36the developing world. Hundreds of millions of people currently do not have access to clean water
37[1]. In particular, children face health risks from water-borne pathogens which cause large-scale
38world-wide deaths [2-3]. To deal with this issue, a variety of approaches have been taken to
39inactivate pathogens and make otherwise unsafe water potable. With an estimated 28 billion
40diarrheal episodes each year [4], the social and human health costs are large.
41 In the past, review articles have been written which discuss the general guidelines of water
42treatment. On the other hand, to the best knowledge of the authors, there are no comprehensive
43presentations which bring together a discussion of pasteurization methodology, descriptions of
44devices, microbiology, and thermal analysis. It is therefore the purpose of this article to provide
45such a comprehensive discussion with updates from recent literature. The focus of the discussion
46will be on water treatment methods for developing-world applications. Specifically, attention

1
47will be given to a thermal model of a parabolic flow-through system which allows a
48determination of the pathogen inactivation rate. The simple model described here can be
49implemented using standard desktop computer resources.
50 The type of pathogen found in a particular water source is dictated by geography, sanitation,
51and nearby human activity. The pathogens can be subdivided into broad biological classes of
52worms, protozoa, bacteria, and viruses (ordered by decreasing size) [5]. A list of the most
53common water borne pathogens is provided in Table 1 which is extracted from [4].
54
55 Table 1 – Common water-borne pathogens
Pathogen Type Health impact Infective Dose
Bacteria: High Moderate
Campylobacter jejuni C. coli High High
Escherichia coli High High
Salmonella typhi High Moderate
Shigella spp. High Moderate
Vibrio cholera High High
Yersinia enterocolitica High High
Viruses:
Adenovirus High Low
Enterovirus High Low
Hepatitis A High Low
Enterically transmitted hepatitis High Low
Norwalk virus High Low
Rotavirus High Moderate
Protozoa:
Entamoeba histolytica High Low
Giardia intestinalis High Low
Cryptosporidium parvum High Low
Worms:
Dracunculus medinensis High Low
56
57 In some resources such as [5], maps showing the presence of certain pathogens are found
58which allow water-resource managers to identify key health risks for a particular water treatment
59method. While the present manuscript presents a short review of non-thermal treatment methods,
60the main emphasis on thermal pasteurization will be presented so that users can tailor a thermal
61protocol for any pathogen which may be present in the water.
62
63
642. Issues associated with water treatment
65 The principle means of infestation of water is through the fecal-oral cycle. The pathogen
66source may be human or animal excrement, and the likelihood of contamination depends on the
67source of water. Typically, deeper water sources are more likely to be potable. Particularly safe
68are deep boreholes, springs, or sealed wells. On the other hand, shallow wells and surface waters
69tend to present higher pathogen populations.
70 Prior to a discussion of water treatment methods, it is important to recognize that pathogen
71contamination is different from water turbidity. Turbidity refers to the optical qualities of water;

2
 72low turbidity is associated with clear water whereas high turbidity characterizes cloudy or nearly
73opaque water. Often quantified by nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), regional or national
74standards give some guidance regarding acceptable levels. In industrialized nations, NTU values
75in the 1-5 range are found whereas streams, lakes, and other surface waters may naturally present
76NTU values over 1000.
77 Causes of high turbidity include the suspension of particulates including clay, silt, and organic
78matter that may not be a direct health threat but are nevertheless a concern for water safety.
79Particulates provide reservoirs which can house pathogens and promote pathogen growth.
80Furthermore, turbidity can inhibit water treatment protocols.
81 The most common approaches to render water safe include improved sanitation, chemical,
82ultraviolet, thermal pasteurization, and filtering. Each method presents both strengths and
83weaknesses. Optimally, multiple methods are used together to provide some degree of safety.
84Perhaps most important is breaking the fecal-oral cycle by providing adequate separation
85between water and the contaminant. Another important step is to avoid recontamination of
86otherwise potable water through contact with hands, kitchen utensils, or other materials which
87may transmit pathogens. The aforementioned water treatment methods will be discussed briefly
88and interested readers are directed to references [2, 4] for a more in-depth discussion. Because
89the primary focus of this manuscript is on thermal pasteurization, a much more detailed
90investigation of that technique will be given.
91
922.1. Slow sand filters
93 Perhaps the first large-scale filter method to be employed was the slow sand method (it is also
94a very commonly used method currently in the developing world and in remote locations). It
95involves the construction of a sand filter bed atop a gravel substrate. As water travels vertically
96through the sand, a biological layer is formed (termed schmutzdecke) which becomes the barrier
97for pathogens. The biological layer must be periodically removed and then regrown when
98hydraulic resistance increases – thereby reducing flowrates. One benefit of the slow sand filter is
99that it reduces turbidity as well as pathogen count. While the operation of a slow sand filter is
100not complex, the large area requirements and the slow flowrates are detractions. Filters may clog
101rapidly if the source contains high levels of particulates. Also the need for large planform area is
102a limiting feature [6].
103 Among the types of pathogens to be removed, viruses (because of their small size) are
104most resistant to filtering. Another issue that must be considered with filtering and other water
105treatment methods is that residual pathogen populations can regenerate over time so that
106otherwise safe levels can regain their ability to cause health risks. For instance, in some
107environments, bacteria can double three times per hour [2]. On the other hand, such ideal
108environments are unlikely to be found in practice and depending on the storage method, bacterial
109counts can continue to fall after the completion of filtering [2,5].
110
111
1122.2. Rapid sand filters
113 As an alternative to slow filtering with small pore beds, larger pore sand beds can allow
114faster flow of water in a rapid sand filter (sometimes termed rough filtering). The larger pores
115allow removal of suspended particulates but their ability to remove pathogens is limited. As with
116slow sand filters, these devices clog quickly if the source water contains high levels of suspended

3
117particles. Also, rapid filters must be periodically cleaned by a process called backwashing which
118is a purposeful reversal of flow through the system.
119 In some cases, rapid sand filters are used to pretreat water which then flows through a slow-
120sand filtration system. Alternatively, rapid filters can be used in conjunction with chemical or
121ultraviolet treatments. Rapid filtration alone is insufficient to create potable water, but it is useful
122removing large suspended particles so that further treatments are more effective.
123
1242.3 Chemical treatments
125 Worldwide, the most common water treatment method is chemical and chlorine is the most
126popular chemical. In industrial plants, automatic dosing is performed with mechanized
127equipment. In rural and under-developed locations, it is common for dry bleach powder to be
128added to water in a batch process. Regardless of the chemical application, it is essential to
129accurately measure the chemical application to ensure thorough treatment. Protocols have been
130developed for various pathogens and time-dosage criteria are available [2].
131 Chemical treatments have a number of advantages. In particular, when proper dosing is used,
132it is highly effective. Furthermore, the chemicals reside in the water after treatment and thereby
133inhibit a reconstitution of pathogen populations. In fact, of the treatment methods discussed in
134this paper, chemical means are the only method which provide resistance to recontamination.
135 Despite these advantages, there are also concerns with chemical treatment. First, turbidity
136makes chemicals less effective – high turbidity, pH, or temperature results in increases of
137chemical dose (by factors of 10 for moderate changes to turbidity, pH and temperature).
138Secondly, careful measurement of dose is required to ensure proper treatment. In small-scale
139batch processes, it may be difficult to ensure continued proper measurement. Finally, access to
140chemicals is required and the chemicals have a relatively short shelf-life which causes a
141reduction in effectiveness over time. An excellent review of chemical treatments can be found in
142[2].
143
1442.4 Use of ultraviolet light
145 Short-wavelength light (ultraviolet) has the potential to damage and kill pathogens. Sample
146literature include [7-9] which are representative of recent studies on the subject. Ultraviolet light
147damages the DNA of pathogens and thereby renders them inactive. Use of ultraviolet systems
148requires a recognition that different spectral ranges are more or less capable of causing DNA
149damage. The shortest UV wavelengths (ultraviolet C range, 100-280 nm) are considered
150germicidal. Consequently, the source of light should produce sufficient UV C energy to
151inactivate the pathogens present in a fluid supply.
152 The two sources of UV light are sunlight and UV lamps. While sunlight at the top of the
153Earth’s atmosphere contains UV C energy, much of it is absorbed by the atmosphere so that at
154the ground, very little germicidal light persists. Consequently, when sunlight is used as the
155lighting source, very long exposure times are required for effective treatment.
156 UV lamps can be designed to provide large amounts of germicidal light however access to
157reliable electricity is a prerequisite. Furthermore, the effectiveness of UV light is heavily
158dependent upon the turbidity of the water. Finally DNA damage, particularly to bacteria, can be
159repaired following the exposure (see for example [10]) so that the water should be consumed
160shortly after treatment.
161
162

4
1633. Thermal Pasteurization
164 Thermal pasteurization refers to the raising of water temperature sufficient to make water
165safe to drink. Pasteurization does not mean the removal of materials, particularly suspended
166particulates which create turbidity – these are removed through filtration. Additionally,
167pasteurization does not require that all pathogens within a water supply are killed. Rather, the
168pathogen populations are reduced to levels to avoid human health risk. Consequently, here
169pasteurization is not identified with sterilization.
170 Thermal pasteurization can be accomplished by batch or flow-through processes. In a batch
171process, water containers are heated by the burning of wood or liquid fuels or by the use of
172sunlight (often with the water container placed in a dark box and covered by a transparent
173material). For flow-through processes, the water is heated while it passes through a pipe or duct
174and emerges as pasteurized. In general, batch processes are less expensive to construct however
175they have higher capacity cost (continued cost for each batch of water produced).
176 Since batch processes require either a fuel source of very long durations, they will not be the
177focus here. Rather, emphasis is given to solar-concentrated flow-through systems. Readers
178interested in a discussion of solar-thermal disinfection in general and to batch-processes in
179particular are directed to [11-16].
180 Pathogens are able to survive elevated temperatures for some finite duration. The duration
181depends strongly on the achieved temperature and on the pathogen type. Fortunately, there are
182industry-accepted guidelines for the food industries which can be used as a starting point in the
183discussion. Furthermore, multiple academic studies have been performed on water
184pasteurization.
185 With respect to the latter, a chronological presentation of some of the important literature
186will now be given. Temperatures in the 60-70oC range were applied to composting sewage
187sludge for long durations (~3 days) in an aerobic composter [17] for complete treatment.
188Hepatits MS-1 and MS-2 strains were studied in [18] where temperatures of 98 oC for 1 minute
189were used. Previous reports had cited both of these strains were inactivated with exposures of 56
190oC for 30 minutes [19-20].
191 Milk product pasteurization was evaluated in [21] and reaction rates were found to be first-
192order at 65oC. Thermal tolerance of different pathogens was also investigated.
193 Fecal and shellfish-specific contaminations were studied in [22] with white-lipped marmoset
194monkeys as the tested species. It was found that thermal treatment of 61oC for 19 minutes was
195insufficient to fully inactivate the hepatitis.
196 Thermal treatment of soils containing pathogens carried out in [23] revealed a logarithmic
197relationship between time and temperature for multiple pathogens. The temperatures used in the
198study were in the 37-50 oC range. At these low levels, long durations were required for
199treatment.
200 Continued work on hepatitus A viruses was completed in [24]. There, researchers used a
201tissue culture method to carefully control temperature and exposure time. It was reported that the
202virus is completely inactivated at 240, 30, and 5 seconds for temperatures of 70, 75, and 80oC
203respectively. Less than full inactivation was observed at lower temperatures and shorter
204durations.
205 Cryoptosporidium was the focus of [25] where a warming protocol from 9 oC to 55 oC over a
206period of 15-20 minutes was effective for calf feces and ileal scrapings. On the otherhand,
207experiments on bacterial enteropathogens [26] found that effective target temperatures for

5
208treatment exceed safe touching temperatures (65oC). These studies reinforce the different levels
209of thermotolerance for various pathogens.
210 Reinforcing studies on giardia treatments show that temperatures well below boiling (70oC
211for 10 minutes [27] and 64oC for 5 minutes [28]) are sufficient.
212 Thermal tolerance of cryptosporidium oocysts were assessed in [29]. Careful laboratory
213experiments were completed with temperature increments of 5oC from 60-100oC. Exposure
214durations were carefully controlled and recorded, then mice subjects were exposed to the water.
215Significant inactivation occurred for 59.7 oC and 5-minute exposures. Also, for temperatures of
21672.4 oC and higher for 1 minute or 64.2 oC and higher for 2 minutes, infectivity was lost. A
217similar study on cryptosporidium oocysts found temperatures of 71.7 oC for 5 seconds to be a
218sufficient thermal exposure [30].
219 A short review article in [31] presented an archival database summarizing multiple studies on
220the thermal tolerance of different pathogens. That review reported some of the above-referenced
221results along with others that reinforced the general temperature-time requirements necessary for
222water treatment.
223 More recently, tests on mycobacterium in milk and lactate solutions were sufficient to extract
224D values (decimal reduction times) which can be used to calculate rates of pathogen inactivation.
225For instance, at 62, 65, 68, and 71.7 oC, the deactivation times were 228.8, 47.8, 21.8, and 11.67
226seconds [32]. More details on the utility of D values will be given in a following section of this
227manuscript.
228 Two excellent papers which quantify pathogen kill rates tabulate values for calculation
229purposes [33-34]. The papers list various pathogens and discuss the means to use them for
230calculation purposes. Although not already mentioned in the context of this review, there are
231other manuscripts that might be useful to note. For instance, [35] presents a mathematical
232analysis of solar sterilization near boiling temperatures. In [36] a parabolic system with axis
233tracking was employed. In [37], a focus was given to simultaneous heating and solar UV light
234was taken. More recently, [38] presented a solar pasteurization system which contained a spill-
235over chamber, a heat exchanger, and a modest size solar collector. There, flow through the
236system was generated by buoyancy changes as the fluid heated.
237 A few summary observations can now be made regarding thermal pasteurization. First,
238although there is a strong dependence on the pathogen type, all pathogens discussed here are
239dealt with at temperatures below boiling. While this view is universally reinforced in the
240literature, it is not common knowledge amongst the general public. Second, required exposure
241durations decrease rapidly as temperature increases. Also, there are wide ranges of
242recommendations in the literature for temperature-time requirements. Much of this range can be
243explained by the lack of controlled experiments. In particular, some experiments involved the
244heating of large amounts of water and the heating-cooling portions of the experiments may
245contribute significantly to the overall thermal exposure.
246 Finally, thermal pasteurization is the sole water treatment method which is not negatively
247impacted by turbidity. This fact makes it particularly useful in locations where filtering of
248suspended particles is not available.
249
2503.1. Inactivation kinetics
251 There are two related methods for determination of pathogen inactivation. Traditionally, the
252decimal reduction time is used which is the time required for a 1-log reduction in pathogens.
253Mathematically, it is expressed as

6
254
N t −t
255log ( )
N0
=
D
(1)

256
257 Here, N0 is the initial pathogen population and Nt is the population at a later time t. The value
258of D depends on the exposure temperature; D decreases quickly as temperature increases.
259Values of D at other temperatures can be found from
260
D −( T −T r )
261log
( )
Dr
=
z
(2)

262
263where the term Dr is the decimal reduction time known at some reference temperature Tr. On the
264other hand, D is the desired decimal reduction time at a different temperature T. The symbol z
265has units of oC. The information presented in Equations (1) and (2) are useful particularly for
266isothermal exposures. However, it is often more convenient to calculate instantaneous rates of
267pathogen destruction through a first-order rate model which can be expressed as
268
dN
269 =−kN (3)
dt
270
271 For isothermal exposures, Equation (3) can be integrated in time, to give
272
Nt
273ln
( )
N0
=−kt (4)

274
275and a comparison of Equations (1) and (4) allows a relationship between k and D which is seen
276to be
277
2.303
278k = (5)
D
279
280For time-varying situations, such as that considered here, the integration of Equation (3) must be
281carried out numerically so that
282
( T−T )
dN ( N t +∆ t −N t )
r
2.303 (6)
283 = =−k N t= ∙ 10 z ∙ N t
dt ∆t Dr
284
285which will be solved using a forward-stepping integration scheme. The only information
286required are values of D (at a reference temperature) and z for various pathogens. Alternatively,
287values of D at two separate temperatures can be used. Archives of the forming information are
288available from the FDA of the United States [39]. The latter type of information can be found in
289[34], for example.
290
291

7
2923.2. Concentrated solar systems and thermal analysis
293 In the literature, there are discussions of parabolic solar concentrating systems although
294much of the literature focuses on industrial scale systems with mirror arrays that heat the
295working fluid to very high temperatures. Reference [40] is an excellent review for those systems.
296Recent article [41] presents a steady-state calculation procedure of parabolic systems but that
297methodology relies upon manufacturer information which is modified based on flowrates. It also
298doesn’t deal with unsteady processes nor does it appear to account for convective and radiative
299heat losses to the environment. So, while [41] presents a calculation procedure, it is believed
300that the current method will be more flexible to handle situations where input parameters,
301particularly from the manufacturer, are not available. Also, importantly, the study [41] did not
302incorporate microbiologic inactivation kinetics within the calculation model. The present
303method will be based on first principles of heat transfer and fluid flow theory and will fully
304integrate microbiologic kinetics.
305 Among the other research which has been published on this topi, [42] utilized flat-plate
306reflecting surfaces that directed sunlight to a bottle containing untreated water. The batch process
307also included an indicator which reacts when pasteurization temperatures have been reached.
308Reference [43] used a combination of flat plate collectors arranged in a near parabolic
309arrangement to increase the percentage of collected energy compared to flat sheets alone. A very
310simple numerical model was presented and incident solar energy was calculated from the solar
311altitude. Very few details were given on the heat transfer model internal to the system so the
312results cannot be replicated.
313 In [44], a fresnel-type solar collector is presented for collecting solar energy to a cooking
314surface. The Fresnel surface was fabricated from a series of short-arc segments of mirror. The
315aperture area was 1.5 m2 and temperatures in excess of 250 oC were achieved. While the device
316in question was intended to heat a stationary surface rather than continuously flowing liquid, it
317still provides an alternative arrangement for solar-pasteurization considerations.
318 A detailed exergy-based approach was presented in [45] for analysis of a parabolic cooker.
319The parabolic device was not a flow-through pasteurizer, rather the cooling pot was aligned with
320the focal axis of the reflector. Information about solar intensity, emissivities, and emissive
321powers are presented. Separate rates of heat transfer are calculated at all relevant surfaces. The
322authors evaluated the influence of various parameters such as the geometrical configuration,
323reflectivity of the surface, among others. They found a very low performance of the theoretical
324device compared with experiments.
325 More recently, [46] presented a scheme for the design and construction of a two-axis solar
326tracing system. The system was integrated into a parabolic trough collector and the results were
327compared with a fixed-orientation system. A small-scale parabolic system was built and tested.
328The two-axis tracing system outperformed the fixed device throughout the entire day,
329particularly in the earliest and latest hours of sunlight.
330 A cone-type reflector was used in [47] which focused extensively on the geometry of
331reflected rays in a two-dimensional reflecting zone. A similar but more relevant study for
332parabolic systems was presented in [48]. There, analytical solutions were given for the optics of
333a parabolic concentrator, some of which had an inverted V absorber.
334 In [49], a very useful study was completed with a parabolic trough with two-axis motion.
335That study, which focused on tracking methodology, also included extensive experimentation.
336Among the measured quantities was the incident solar energy which was found using a

8
337pyranometer. The authors designed, built, and tested the device for three days and showed that
338water in the tube could reach 90 oC. In that paper, no thermal model was presented.
339 A very unique design which incorporated a parabolic trough with side reflection panels was
340shown in [50]. The side panels were intended to serve as optical funnels to transfer incident solar
341energy to the bottom portion of the reflecting geometry. That study had very extensive
342calculation of the reflecting geometry and optics, comparisons of optical performance with
343conventional reflectors was made. On the other hand, no thermal model was presented in this
344study.
345 A final example from the literature is [51] which not only characterized different parabolic
346systems but discussed performance of various systems and efficiency results. This manuscript
347listed and discussed design modifications which have the potential to impact overall performance
348such as solar tracking, evacuated tube insulation, and others. No thermal model was presented in
349the study.
350 Solar collection systems for much higher temperatures have also been used for solar-thermal
351power generation. Such devices differ from the present solar-pasteurization systems in their
352scale and temperatures. There is a wealth of literature on such systems which is not discussed
353here because of scope. As stated earlier, an excellent review of the general technology is
354provided by [40] and interested readers are directed there.
355 While this literature review is not intended to be exhaustive, it represents publications within
356the past two decades on the topic. It is seen that for small-scale solar reflecting systems, there
357are few thermal analyses and those analyses that are presented are either not presented with
358sufficient detail to enable reproduction or their focus not fully relevant for this study.
359Furthermore, to the best knowledge of the authors, there is no study which incorporates a model
360of the biologic response to solar heating. Consequently, the present model, which is the first to
361integrate a fully descriptive thermal model with a biologic calculation, is novel and of use to the
362scientific community.
363 The aforementioned microbiological model will be applied to a concentrating parabolic
364trough solar collector. A schematic of the system is shown in Figure 1. It is seen that water is
365supplied from an elevated water storage container whose height supplies hydrostatic pressure;
366the systems can also be connected to a pressurized water source or pump. The water passes
367through a fluid-to-fluid heat exchanger before flowing past the parabolic mirror. The exiting
368treated water is cycled back into the heat exchanger before emerging at a distribution site.
369 Temperatures of the flowing fluid are calculated at multiple locations within the system. To
370aid in the discussion of the thermal model, Figure 2 has been prepared. That figure shows the
371flow passages through the principle thermal components with annotations of the location of
372calculation points.
373

9
374
375 Figure 1 – Schematic diagram of a parabolic trough pasteurization system.
376
377 The symbol Tin is the incoming temperature to the heat exchanger. This temperature is taken
378to be that of the water in the storage container. Temperatures T1 – T6 are calculated within the
379parabolic trough. In the schematic off Figure 2, the solar collector has been subdivided into 5
380control volumes; the number of control volumes which constitute the collector is arbitrary,
381increasing the number of elements will improve calculation accuracy. The temperature rise
382across each control volume will be determined from an energy balance that will be described
383shortly. The inlet temperature to the collector (T1) is taken to be the exit temperature of the fluid-
384to-fluid heat exchanger.
385 Water exists the collector with temperature T6. It is then directed back to the fluid-to-fluid
386heat exchanger. Provided that there is adequate insulation, the inlet temperature of the heat
387exchanger (T7) is equal to the temperature exiting the collector (T6). Finally, Tout is the
388temperature of the return line leaving the heat exchanger.
389
390

391
392 Figure 2 – Location of temperature calculation points
393
394 There are two calculation steps that must be completed simultaneously. First, within the
395solar collector, the temperature rise has to be calculated. Secondly, heat exchange from the
396treated to the untreated stream must be accounted for.
397 Within the solar collector, the timewise evolution of temperature is based on an unsteady
398energy balance that is
399

10
 dTn
400 ∆ q= ṁ∙ c p ,fluid ( T n+1−T n ) + [ ( m∙ c p )fluid + ( m∙ c p ) pipe ]n (6)
dt
401
402where the symbol  is used to reflect the fact that the energy balance is performed over a small
403region (one of the control volumes contained within the collector). The symbol ṁ is the mass
404flowrate and cp is the specific heat of either the fluid or the pipe wall. The symbols Tn and Tn+1
405represent the temperatures at the exit and inlet of the control volume, respectively. The first term
406on the right hand side is heat that is used raising the temperature of the flowing fluid. The
407second term on the right is energy used to raise the temperature of the pipe and the fluid within
408the pipe. It is assumed that the fluid and the pipe in any control volume are at equal
409temperatures; axial conduction is neglected.
410 The net influx of heat, q, includes energy gain by thermal radiation as well as energy lost by
411both convective and infrared heat loss. It can be found from
412
413∆ q=( ∆ q ) solar−( ∆ q )convection −( ∆ q ) IR (7)
414
415where
416
417( ∆ q )solar =I solar ∙ ∆ A collector ∙ F (8)
418
419is the solar influx of heat. The symbol Isolar is the insolation flux at the ground, it was measured
420directly and is in units of W/m2. Measured values depend on the latitude, time of year, time of
421day, and the presence or absence of cloud cover. For the experimental results presented later in
422this manuscript, the time-averaged value was approximately 800 W/m2. Acollector is the parabolic
423solar collection area for the control volume under consideration. The term F represents losses
424from incomplete reflection at the mirror surface or absorption at the pipe which resides along the
425focal axis and any imperfect alignment of the pipe along the focal line. This number is expected
426to be very close to 1 for high-quality parabolic systems.
427 The convective losses can be calculated from
428
( T n+1 +T n )
429 ( ∆ q )convection =h́ ∆ A surf ( 2
−T amb ) (9)

430
431where the symbol h́ is the area average convective coefficient on the control volume under
432consideration. This value depends on both local wind as well as the temperature of the pipe if
433buoyant flow is important. For the calculations here, the air in the vicinity of the pipe was
434considered stationary so standard buoyant-flow convection correlations were used [52].
435Correlations are available for convective calculations in many resources such as [52-55].
436Calculations show that final temperatures are nearly independent of the convective coefficient so
437long as a reasonable value is assigned.
438 In a similar manner, the heat loss by infrared radiation can be calculated from
439
4
( T n +1+ T n )
440 ( ∆ q )IR =ϵσ ∆ A surf (( 2 )) (10)

11
441
442where and are the emissivity and Stefan-Boltzmann constant, respectively. The control-
443volume temperature in Equation (10) must be expressed in absolute units. In Equation (10), no
444account has been made for incoming infrared radiation from above the pipe, however this
445component is expected to be much smaller than the other components.
446 For high-performance solar concentrators, a surrounding tube (glass pipe with evacuated
447interior) may be used to provide thermal insulation. The presence of such a tube can be
448incorporated into the present analysis through the inclusion of a series thermal resistance which
449is applied to the heat loss. On the other hand, for low-cost solar pasteurization systems designed
450for rugged environments and the developing world, such high-cost insulating tubes are difficult
451to justify.
452 When the terms from Equations (7)-(10) are evaluated at timestep i, temperature at the
453following time i+1 can be found by numerically integrating Equation (6) as
454
i
∆ q−ṁ∙ c p , fluid ( T n +1−T n )
455T

456
i+1
n+1 =T i
n+1 +∆t
[[ ( m ∙ c p ) fluid + ( m ∙c p ) pipe ]n ] , n = 1, 2, … (11)

457In Figure 2, temperatures T7 = T6. The final unknown yet needed information is the temperature
458T1. This value is found through the effectiveness-NTU heat exchanger analysis method which
459gives
460
i +1 i
461T 1 =T ¿ +e ( T 7−T ¿ ) (12)
462
463where e is the heat exchanger effectiveness.
464 If a thermal valve is used to control flow when temperatures are below a threshold, then ṁ=0
465. When the temperature at the valve (typically at the exit of the collector) is less than the valve
466operation temperature. If the valve has opened, then the mass flowrate must be determined by
467considering a fluid mechanical-energy equation,
468
ρV 2 L ρV2
469 ρg htank = +f + ∆ Pminor (13)
2 d 2
470
471Here, Pminor are the contributions to pressure loss other than friction. Equation (13) allows
472calculation of the fluid velocity within the pipe, V from
473
2 gh
474

475
V=

√( f
L
d
+ K inlet + K valve )
(14)

476Here, Kinlet and Kvalve are minor loss coefficients at the pipe inlet and at the valve. If there are
477other minor losses within the system, their loss coefficients would be added in the denominator.
478The symbol f is the friction factor which would be determined based on the flowrate and
479Reynolds number at the prior timestep. With the fluid velocity, and consequently mass flowrate
480now known, the entire calculation algorithm can be articulated.

12
481 At time step t = 0, all temperatures are initialized to a starting value equal to the water
482temperature in the storage contained. At later timesteps,
483
484Step 1: Tin = temperature of water in the storage tank
485Step 2: T1 is solved from Equation (12)
486Step 3: T2, T3, … T6 are found from Equation (11)
487Step 4: T7 = T6
488Step 5: Compare T6 to a valve operation temperature, updated mass flowrate from Equation (14),
489 repeat with Step 1.
490
491 Results of the temperature calculation are shown in Figure 3 for a particular set of input
492parameters. In the image, five of the temperatures are shown which represent temperatures at the
493within the collector. The settings for the calculation listed in Table 2.
494
495
496The kinematic viscosity of water was calculated at each timestep by the following interpolating
497function
498
499 ν ( T )=1.10 x 10−10 ∙T 2−2.17 x 10−8 ∙T +1.37 x 10−6 (m2/s) (15)
500
501with temperatures in oC to account for the impact of temperature on viscosity.
502 The image shows that there is an initial unsteady period during which the temperature of fluid
503in the pipe rises uniformly. At approximately 110 seconds, the valve activation temperature is
504reached and flow passes through the system. Temperatures at upstream locations are reduced
505and a quasi-steady state is reached with temperatures oscillating as the valve opens and closes
506regularly.
507
508

509
510Figure 3 – Sample results of the thermal calculation.
511

13
512Table 2 – Settings for sample thermal calculation.
Parameter Value
Fluid density 1000 kg/m3
Fluid heat capacity 4200 J/kg-oC
Pipe density 8900 kg/m3
Pipe heat capacity 385 J/kg-oC
Pipe OD/ID 0.02/0.01 m
Pipe length 4m
Kinlet 1
Kvalve 10
Valve operating temperature 70 oC
Tank water temperature 25 oC
Mirror diameter 1m
Solar loss factor 0.5
Ambient temperature 25 oC
Pipe emissivity 0.9
Heat exchanger effectiveness 0.5
513
514
515 The numerical model can be used to assess the impact of changes in the operating parameters.
516For instance, a higher-performance heat exchanger (e = 0.7) increases the recovery of heat from
517the treated stream and raises the inlet temperature of the fluid entering the collector. The result is
518shown in Figure 4. There it is seen that temperatures are more tightly bounded. This observation
519is expected because the inlet temperature is affected by the heat exchanger performance and the
520exit temperature is connected to the valve operation temperature.
521
522

523

14
524Figure 4 – Thermal results corresponding to Table 2 parameters with increased heat exchanger
525efficiency (0.7).
526
527 The impact of the valve coefficient can be assessed in Figure 5. There, the valve loss
528coefficient has been changed from 10 to 2. As a result, the temperature levels are mostly
529unchanged however the variation in temperatures at each location has increased.
530

531
532Figure 5 - Thermal results corresponding to Table 2 parameters with increased heat exchanger
533efficiency (0.7) and valve loss coefficient equal to 2.
534
535A final sample of results is shown in Figure 6 which displays the impact of the solar loss factor.
536This factor is impacted by many items including the perfection of the mirror (curvature and
537surface reflectivity) as well as by the absorptivity of the collecting tube. In the figure, its value
538has been increased from 0.5 to 0.75, the other parameters are identical to Table 2 and Figure 4. A
539comparison of Figures 4 and 6 demonstrate while the quasi-steady temperatures are nearly
540identical, the duration of the transient heating process is shortened with higher loss factors.
541

15
542
543Figure 6 – Thermal results corresponding to Table 2 parameters with increased solar loss factor
544(0.75).
545
5463.3. Resulting pathogen inactivation
547 The temperature results shown in the preceding section can be used to evaluate the degree to
548which pathogens are inactivated. To provide a sample calculation, Escherichia Coli O3:H6 is
549considered. D values of 401 seconds have been recorded at temperatures of 55 oC with a z value
550of 5.6 oC [34]. For these values, and with Equations (2) and (5), k can be found to be
551
552k =8.66 x 10−14 ∙ e 0.411T (1/seconds) (16)
553
554with temperature expressed in oC. Samples calculations carried out with the values listed in Table
5553 result in a quasi-steady temperature variation which begins to occur after approximately 100
556seconds of heating. In order to ensure that the water is potable, a conservative approach is taken.
557Equation (6) is applied for the water within the solar collector proper. Any heating prior to entry
558into the collector and the high-temperature exposure of the water after it leaves the collector is
559ignored (pathogen death between locations T6 – Tout in Figure 2). Including these terms would
560require information about the pipe diameter and length which connects the exit of the solar
561collector to the heat exchanger.
562
563Table 3 – Settings for sample thermal calculation.
Parameter Value
Fluid density 1000 kg/m3
Fluid heat capacity 4200 J/kg-oC
Pipe density 8900 kg/m3
Pipe heat capacity 385 J/kg-oC

16
 Pipe OD/ID 0.02/0.01 m
Pipe length 4m
Kinlet 1
Kvalve 10
Valve operating temperature 70 oC
Tank water temperature 25 oC
Mirror diameter 1m
Solar loss factor 0.5
Ambient temperature 25 oC
Pipe emissivity 0.9
Heat exchanger effectiveness 0.75
564
565 The results of the calculation are shown in Figure 7. There, pathogen survival is displayed as
566a percentage of initial pathogens. The time is displayed as a normalized quantity (normalized by
567the period of the quasi-steady oscillations). Inspection of the figure reveals that nearly all of the
568pathogens are inactivated by the system described by Table 2.
569

570
571
572Figure 7 – Inactivation results for Escherichia Coli O3:H6 corresponding to the system described
573in Table 3.
574
575 The calculations which were completed to create the results of Figure 7 can easily be
576replicated with any other pathogen, provided that inactivation kinetic terms are known. It has
577also been shown that the methodology described here can be modified to show results for a wide
578range of parameter settings. Finally, these results are based on a conservative analysis which
579neglects any thermal inactivation which may occur downstream of the thermally activated valve.
580
581
5824. Comparison of model calculations with experiments.
583 A full-size experiment was performed to assess the ability of the numerical model to
584accurately predict temperatures. Wind was approximately 7.3 miles per hour (3.3 m/s) and

17
585consequently, forced convection had to be accounted for in the convective heat transfer
586coefficient [43]. During the tests, it was found that the focal size of the mirror was not well
587controlled and only 15% of the reflected energy was incident on the pipe; consequently, the focal
588loss factor was set to 0.15. The relevant experimental parameters are listed in Table 4.
589 The values to be compared are the temperatures at the exit of the pipe. Since directly
590measurements of the water were not made, they were inferred from well-established
591extrapolation techniques [56]. There are some differences between the measured and simulated
592results however the close agreement, including the very similar rate of heating and the near
593coincident temperature decrease are reinforcing of the simulations. The experiments involved a
594valve inertia, insofar as the valve is not able to instantaneously open or close, it will not perfectly
595match the calculations. On the other hand, the simulation response is instantaneous, as evident
596by the rapid temperature decrease upon activation. For those situations where there is a delay in
597the valve both opening and closing, it is necessary to recognize that the cool fluid at the pipe
598inlet may be able to traverse the entire pipe before it recloses.
599 For rapid electrically activated valves, this issue of thermal inertia is not relevant.
600
601Table 4 – Settings for experimental test
Parameter Value
Fluid density 1000 kg/m3
Fluid heat capacity 4200 J/kg-oC
Pipe density 8900 kg/m3
Pipe heat capacity 385 J/kg-oC
Pipe OD/ID 0.02/0.01 m
Pipe length 1m
Kinlet 1
Kvalve 10
Valve operating temperature 78 oC
Tank water temperature 30 oC
Mirror diameter 1m
Solar loss factor 0.15
Ambient temperature 25 oC
Pipe emissivity 0.6
Heat exchanger effectiveness 0.75
Convective heat transfer coefficient 27 W/m2 C
Incident solar flux 900 W/m2
602
603

18
604
605 Figure 8 – Comparison between experimental and simulated temperature results.
606
6075. Concluding Remarks
608 There is a need for a simple yet effective means of characterizing the thermal performance of
609solar concentrated water pasteurization systems. Preferably, the method would allow users to
610modify operational parameters to assess their impact on performance. Additionally, the method
611must be coupled to a prediction of thermal inactivation of pathogens.
612 Following a review of the literature, such a coupled predictive system has been proposed.
613The system allows variation of parameters such as the solar insolation, fluid and pipe materials,
614pipe and mirror sizes, presence or absence of a heat exchanger and thermally actuated valves,
615and other characteristics. With the model described here, it was shown that the presence of a
616thermally actuated valve results in a quasi-steady behavior which is repeated periodically. The
617use of a heat exchanger raises the inlet temperature of the fluid and improves performance.
618Finally, higher quality construction allows the retention of more solar energy and shortens the
619initial thermal transient.
620 When coupled with the thermal model, it was found that by a conservative estimate, there can
621be significant reduction in the viability of pathogens in the water. As a consequence, solar-
622thermal pasteurization systems can make unclean water potable.
623
624
625References

19
626[1] World Health Organization, Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation, Joint Monitoring
627Programme Update 2012, World Health Organization: UNICEF, 2012.
628
629[2] Burch J, Thomas KE, An overview of water disinfection in developing countries and the
630potential for solar thermal water pasteurization, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
631NREL/TP-550-23110.
632
633[3] Liu L, Johnson HL, Cousens S, et al., Child health epidemiology reference group of WHO
634and UNICEF, Lancet 2012;379:2151-2161.
635
636[4] Gadgil A, Drinking water in developing countries. Annual Reviews of Energy and the
637Environment 1998; 23:253-286.
638
639[5] Feachem R, Bradley DJ, Mara DD, Sanitation and disease: Health aspects of excreta and
640wastewater management, John Wily and Sons, New York, NY, 1983.
641
642[6] Huisman L, Wood WE, Slow sand filtration, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1974.
643
644[7] Legrini O, Oliveros E, Braun AM, Photochemical processes for water treatment, Chemical
645Reviews 1993;93:671-698.
646
647[8] Betancourt WQ, Rose JB, Drinking water treatment processes for removal of
648Cryptosporidium and Giardia, Veterinary Parasitology 2004;126:219-234.
649
650[9] Svrek C, Smith DW, Cyanobacteria toxins and the current state of knowledge on water
651treatment options: a review, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 2004;3:155-185.
652
653[10] Zimmer JL, Slawson RM, Potential repair of Escherichi Coli DNA following exposure to
654UV radiation from both medium- and low-pressure UV sources used in drinking water treatment,
655Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2002;68:3293-3299.
656
657[11] Burch JD, Thomas KE, Water disinfection for developing countries and potential for solar
658thermal pasteurization, Solar Energy 1998;64,87-97.
659
660[12] Walker, DC, Len SV, Sheehan B, Development and evaluation of a reflective solar
661disinfection pouch for treatment of drinking water, Applied Environmental Microbiology
6622004;70:2545-2550.
663
664[13] Joyce TM, McGuigan KG, Elmore-Meegan M, Control RM, Inactivation of fecal bacteria in
665drinking water by solar heating, Applied Environmental Microbiology 1996;62:399-402.
666
667[14] Ciochetti DA, Metcalf RH, Pasteurization of naturally contaminated water with solar
668energy, Applied Environmental Microbiology 1984;47:223-228.
669
670[15] Saitoh TS, El-Ghetany HH, Solar water-sterilization system with thermally controlled flow,
671Applied Energy 1999;64:387-399.

20
672
673[16] Caslake LF, et al., Disinfection of contaminated water by using solar irradiation, Applied
674and Environmental Microbiology 2004;70:1145-1150.
675
676[17] Wiley BB, Westerberg SC, Survival of human pathogens in composted sewage, Applied
677Microbiology 1969;18:994-1001.
678
679[18] Krugman S, Giles JP, Hammond J, Hepatitus virus: Effect of heat on the infectivity and
680antigenicity of the MS-1 and MS-2 strains, The Journal of Infectious Diseases 1970;122:432-436
681
682[19] Havens WP, Properties of the etiologic agent of infectious hepatitis, Proceedings of the
683Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1945;58:203-204.
684
685[20] Ward R, Krugman S, Giles JP, Jacobs AM, Bodansky O, Infectious hepatitis: Studies of its
686natural history and prevention, New England Journal of Medicine 1958;258:407-416.
687
688[21] Sullivan R, Tierney JT, Larkin EP, Read RB, Peeler JT, Thermal resistance of certain
689oncogenic viruses suspended in milk and milk products, Applied Microbiology 1971;22:315-
690320.
691
692[22] Peterson DA, Wolfe LG, Larkin EP, Deinhardt FW, Thermal treatment and infectivity of
693hepatitis A in human feces, Journal of Medical Virology 1978;2:201-206.
694
695[23] Pullman GS, DeVay JE, Garber RH, Soil solarization and thermal death: A logarithmic
696relationship between time and temperature for four soilborne plant pathogens, Disease Control
697and Pest Management 1981;71:959-964.
698
699[24] Parry JV, Mortimer PP, The heat sensitivity of hepatitis A virus determined by a simple
700tissue culture method, Journal of Medical Virology 1984;14:277-283.
701
702[25] Anderson BC, Moist heat inactivation of Cryptosporidium sp., American Journal of Public
703Health 1985;75:1433-1434.
704
705[26] Bandres JC, Mathewson JJ, DuPont HL, Heat susceptibility of bacterial enteropathogens,
706Archives of Internal Medicine 1988;148:2261-2263.
707
708[27] Ongerth JE, Johnson RL, Macdonald SC, Frost F, Stibbs HH, Backcountry water treatment
709to prevent giardiasis, American Journal of Public Health 1989;79;1633-1638.
710
711[28] Aukerman R, Monzingo DL, Water treatment to inactivate giardia, Journal of Forestry
7121989;87:18-21
713
714[29] Fayer R, Effect of temperature on infectivity of cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in water,
715Applied and Environmental Microbiology 1994;60:2732-2735.
716

21
717[30] Harp JA, Fayer R, Pesch BA, Jackson GJ, Effect of pasteurization on infectivity of
718cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in water and milk, Applied and Environmental Microbiology
7191996;62:2866-2868.
720
721[31] Backer HD, Effect of heat on the sterilization of artificially contaminated water, Journal of
722Travel Medicine 1996;3:1-4.
723
724[32] Sung N, Collins MT, Thermal tolerance of mycobacterium paratuberculosis, Applied and
725Environmental Microbiology 1998;64:999-1005.
726
727[33] van Asselt ED, Zwietering MH, A systematic approach to determine global thermal
728inactivation parameters for various food pathogens, International Journal of Food Microbiology
7292006;107:73-82.
730
731[34] Spinks AT, Dunstan RH, Harrison T, Coombes P, Kuczera G, Thermal inactivation of
732water-borne pathogenic and indicator bacteria at sub-boiling temperatures, Water Research
7332006;40:1326-1332.
734
735[35] Bansal NK, Sawhney RL, Misra A, Solar sterilization of water, Solar Energy 1988;40,35-
73639.
737
738[36] Al-Soud MS, Abdallah E, Akayleh A, Abdallah S, Hrayshat ES, A parabolic solar cooker
739with automatic two-axes sun tracking system, Applied Energy 2010;87:463-470.
740
741[37] Rijal GK, Fujioka RS, Synergistic effect of solar radiation and solar heating to disinfect
742drinking water sources, Water Science and Technology 2001;43:155-162.
743
744[38] Duff WS, Hodgson DA, A simple high efficiency solar water purification system, Solar
745Energy 2005;79:25-32.
746
747[39] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Kinetics of microbial inactivation for alternative for
748processing technologies – overarching principles: Kinetics and pathogens of concern for all
749technologies,
750http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/SafePracticesforFoodProcesses/ucm100198.htm
751
752[40] Fernandes-Garcia A, Zarza E, Valensuela L, Perez M, Parabolic-trough solar collectors and
753their applications, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2012;14:1695-1721.
754
755[41] Abdel Dayem AM, El-Ghetany HH, El-Taweet GE, Kamel MM, Thermal performance and
756biological evaluation of solar water disinfection systems using parabolic trough collectors,
757Desalination and Water Treatment 2011;36:119-128.
758
759[42] Safapour N, Metcalf RH, Enhancement of solar water pasteurization with reflectors,
760Applied and Environmental Microbiology 1999;65:859-861.
761

22
762[43] Denkenberger D, Pearce JM, Compund parabolic concentrators for solar water heat
763pasteurization: Numerical simulation, white paper, downloaded from
764http://www.academia.edu/1484561/Compound_Parabolic_Concentrators_for_Solar_Water_Heat
765_Pasteurization_Numerical_Simulation
766
767[44] Sonune AV, Philip SK, Development of a domestic concentrating cooker, Renewable
768Energy 2003;28:1225-1234.
769
770[45] Petela R, Exergy analysis of the solar cylindrical-parabolic cooker, Solar Energy
7712005;79:221-233.
772
773[46] Bakos GC, Design and construction of a two-axis sun tracking system for parabolic trough
774collector (PTC) efficiency improvement, Renewable Energy 2006;31:2411-2421.
775
776[47] Kiatgamolchai S, Chamni E, Theory and experiment of a two-dimensional cone
777concentrator for sunlight, Solar Energy 2008;82:111-117.
778
779[48] Fraidenraich N, Tiba C, Brandao BB, Vilela OB, Analytic solutions for the geometric and
780optical properties of stationary compound parabolic concentrators with fully inverted V receiver,
781Solar Energy 2008;82:132-143.
782
783[49] Al-Soud MS, Abdallah E, Akayleh A, Abdallah S, Hrayshat ES, A parabolic solar cooker
784with automatic two axes sun tracking system, Applied Energy 2010;87:463-470.
785
786[50] Tao T, Hongfei Z, Kaiyan H, Mayere A, A new trough solar concentrator and its
787performance analysis, Solar Energy 2011;85:198-207.
788
789[51] Jradi M, Riffat S, Medium temperature concentrators for solar thermal applications,
790International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2012; 0:1-11.
791
792[52] Bergman TL, Lavine AS, Incropera FP, DeWitt DP, Introduction to Heat and Mass
793Transfer, 6th edition, John Wiley and Sons, 2011, New Jersey.
794
795[53] Sparrow EM, Abraham JP, Tong, JCK, Archival correlations for average heat transfer
796coefficients for non-circular and circular cylinders and for spheres in crossflow, International
797Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 2004;47;5285-5296.
798
799[54] Hollands AV, Hassani KGT, On natural convection heat transfer from three-dimensional
800bodies of arbitrary shape, Journal of Heat Transfer 1989;111:363-371.
801
802[55] Abraham JP, Sparrow EM, Three dimensional laminar and turbulent natural convection in a
803continuously/discretely wall-heated enclosure containing a thermal load, Numerical Heat
804Transfer A 2003;44:105-125.
805

23
806[56] Gorman JM, Sparrow EM, Abraham JP, Differences between measured pipe wall surface
807temperatures and internal fluid temperatures, Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 2013, 1: 13-
80816.

24