Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Performance of solar still using shape-stabilized PCM: Experimental and T

theoretical investigation
Wen-Long Cheng , Yan-Kai Huo, Yong-Le Nian
⁎ ⁎

Department of Thermal Science and Energy Engineering, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230027, PR China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this paper, both a novel experiment and simulation model was presented to evaluate the performance of a
Solar still solar still by applying a new shape-stabilized phase change material (SSPCM). The SSPCM was characterized
Shape-stabilized PCM with stable shape, high thermal conductivity and high solar absorption. Firstly, an experiment for solar still with
Melting temperature SSPCM was carried out, and the SSPCM used in the experiment got thermal conductivity 1.50 W/m K and solar
Thermal conductivity
absorption around 0.94, which can replace the conventional metal absorber plate. Then, a comprehensive heat
Daily productivity
Cost analysis
transfer model for the solar still was built to analyze the effect of melting temperature and thermal conductivity
of the SSPCM on the performance of the solar still. The experimental results revealed that the daily productivity
of solar still with SSPCM was 3.41 L/m2, 43.3% higher than that of conventional solar still without SSPCM. The
simulation results showed that the daily productivity increased from 42% to 53% compared with that of con-
ventional solar still when thermal conductivity of SSPCM increased from 0.2 W/m K to 4.0 W/m K. And in-
creasing the melting temperature of SSPCM from 34 °C to 50 °C improved the percentage of enhancing pro-
ductivity from 21.5% to 57.5%. Finally, the cost analysis was performed.

1. Introduction
With the global population growth and the deterioration of the
ecological environment, more and more areas are facing the problem of
fresh water shortage, which brings many challenges. In order to solve
the problem of fresh water shortage, desalination of the saline seawater
is presented, which relies on fossil fuels and renewable energies [1].
Because of the environmental pollution and high production costs
caused by the use of fossil fuels, renewable energy is increasingly ap-
plied to desalination. As a safe, clean, abundant and free renewable
energy, solar energy is an ideal energy source for desalination. For-
tunately, many areas such as the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa,
which lack fresh water, have ample saline seawater and high insolation
rates. This provides an excellent condition for practical application of
solar desalination.
Various structures of solar stills were studied, such as vertical
multiple-effect diffusion solar stills [2,3], weir-type cascade solar stills
[4,5] and single basin solar stills [6–11]. Single basin solar stills are
widely investigated due to its advantages of simple structure and easy
fabrication. However, it is less productive than other types of solar
stills. Therefore, many researchers have proposed their own solutions to
increase the output of solar stills. O.O. Badran [6] studied the effects of
water depth, wind speed, ambient temperature and solar radiation
intensity on the productivity of the solar still. Pankaj K.Srivastava et al.
[7] proposed a method which porous fins made of black cotton cloth
were partially dipped in the basin water. This design achieved higher
yields by increasing the heating area and evaporation area. R.Arun
Kumar et al. [8] built a single basin solar still system, which was cou-
pled with a DC motor to give the stirring effect and used the exhaust fan
to extract water vapor from the extractor to the external condenser to
enhance evaporation and condensation. The floating absorber was de-
signed to improve the performance of solar stills [9,10]. Lower water
mass and heat capacity for the water above the floating absorber de-
creased preheating time and increased productivity. L. Sahota and G.N.
Tiwari [12] applied nanofluid with 0.12% concentration of Al2O3 na-
noparticles to achieve the enhancement of 12.2% in the daily pro-
ductivity when basefluid mass is 35 kg. Further, the effects of three
different nanofluids (Al2O3; TiO2; CuO) on the performance of the solar
still were studied [13]. The result showed that three different nano-
fluids follow the order of productivity as Al2O3 > TiO2 > CuO - water
based nanofluid. The performance of single and double slope solar stills
was compared by exergoeconomic and energy matrices [14,15]. It was
found that single slope solar still performs better than double slope
solar still based on exergoeconomic parameters, annual yield, annual
exergy and annual energy.
The preparation of absorber plates with high solar absorption is also

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: wlcheng515@163.com (W.-L. Cheng), nyle@1ustc.edu.cn (Y.-L. Nian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.01.007
Received 25 October 2018; Received in revised form 15 December 2018; Accepted 9 January 2019
Available online 18 January 2019
0011-9164/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
W.-L. Cheng et al. Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99

Nomenclature ε effective emissivity

η thermal efficiency, %
A area, m2 μ dynamic viscosity, N s/m2
C heat capacity, J/kg °C ρ density, kg/m3
g acceleration due to gravity, m/s2 σ Stefan–Boltzmann's constant, 5.6697 × 10−8 W/m2 K4
Gr Grashof number τ emissivity
hp heat transfer coefficient from absorber surface to SSPCM, Δt the time interval for measuring solar radiation, °C
W/m2 K ΔT the width of the phase transition range, °C
hb heat transfer coefficient from SSPCM to ambient, W/m2 K
hrgos radiative heat transfer coefficient from outer surface of the Subscripts
glass cover to ambient, W/m2 K
hcgoa convective heat transfer coefficient from outer surface of a ambient
the glass cover to ambient, W/m2 K ew basin water evaporated
hewgi evaporative heat transfer coefficient from basin water to eff effective heat capacity of the SSPCM
inner surface of the glass cover, W/m2 K g glass cover
hcwgi convective heat transfer coefficient from basin water to gi inner surface of the glass cover
inner surface of the glass cover, W/m2 K go outer surface of the glass cover
hrwgi radiative heat transfer coefficient from basin water to ins insulation
inner surface of the glass cover, W/m2 K l liquid
hcpw convective heat transfer coefficient from absorber surface m melting point
to basin water, W/m2 K p absorber surface
I solar intensity, W/m2 PCM phase-change material
k thermal conductivity, W/m K s soild
L latent heat, J/kg sky sky
m mass, kg w basin water
n constant
P partial vapor pressure, N/m2 Abbreviations
Pr Prandtl number
q rate of heat transfer, W/m2 AC the first annual cost of the system
t passed time from starting the operation, s AMC the annual maintenance cost
T temperature, °C AS the first annual salvage value of the solar still
V average of wind velocity, m/s CC the capital cost of the system
x thickness, m CPL the cost per liter
CRF the capital recovery factor
Greek symbols M mean annual production
S the salvage value of the system
α absorptivity SFF sinking fund factor
β coefficient of volumetric thermal expansion, K−1 TAC the total annual cost of the solar still

one of the effective measures to increase production. Therefore, carbon
materials, such as carbon nanotubes (CNTs) [11,16], graphene oxide
[17–19] and exfoliated graphite [20], was applied to capture more solar
radiant energy. For example, Nisrin Abdelal and Yazan Taamneh [11]
added 5 wt% CNTs to the epoxy matrix in the carbon fiber reinforced
epoxy composites and the freshwater productivity increases by 92%
compared with black painted galvanized steel.
In addition to doing everything possible to increase daylight pro-
ductivity, increasing nighttime yield is also an important research di-
rection. The energy storage materials are an excellent choice because it
can store energy during sunshine hours and discharge to keep a higher
water temperature during off-sunshine hours. H.S. Deshmukh et al. [21]
discussed the effects of sand and servotherm medium oil as sensible
heat storage materials on the performance of the solar still. It has been
found that the solar still with sensible heat storage materials have
higher yield than a conventional still. A.E. Kabeel et al. [22] used
graphite as a high thermal conductivity sensible storage material. The
graphite was more effective than the other sensible storage materials
such as sand, black gravel, and glass balls. Compared with sensible heat
storage material, per unit mass phase change material (PCM) can
charge/discharge more energy when phase transitions. A.E. Kabeel
et al. [23] designed a solar still system which contains PCM, oil heat
exchanger and a cylindrical parabolic concentrator with a focal pipe.
The productivity of the developed solar still is 140.4% higher than that
of the conventional solar still. A.A. El-Sebaii et al. [24] built a
mathematical model for a solar still enhanced by PCM and carried out a
theoretical analysis on the productivity. The daily productivity of the
solar still using 3.3 cm stearic acid is 9.005 kg/m2, and it is enhanced by
80.2% compared with productivity of the conventional still. S.W.
Sharshir et al. [25] proposed a novel solar still enhanced by PCM, film
cooling and water-flake graphite nanoparticles mixture. The result is
73.8% enhancement in productivity. Ashraf Elfasakhany [1] added
copper powder to paraffin wax to increase the thermal conductivity of
paraffin wax. The distillate increases by 6% compared with the solar
still with pure paraffin wax. Omar Ansari [26] theoretically analyzed
the effects of three kinds of PCM with different melting temperature on
the performance of the solar still. It reached a conclusion that the op-
timum melting temperature of PCM close to the maximum temperature
that can be reached by the brackish water.
Although the PCM have shown a promotion of water production for
a solar still, there are several problems when PCM, like paraffin wax
and stearic acid, is used in solar stills. First, the volume expansion of
PCM may leak when it melts. In addition, since the phase transition of
the PCM from the liquid to the solid undergoes volume shrinkage [27],
it is difficult to ensure a perfect surface contact between a solar ab-
sorber plate and PCM. Also, the phase change process of PCM was al-
ways assumed without temperature gradient during simulation
[4,5,24,26,28]. Another crucial problem is that most of PCM have a low
thermal conductivity and is not conducive to charge/discharge energy.
However, these issues are rarely considered in previous studies.

90
W.-L. Cheng et al. Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99

Therefore, it is necessary to develop a PCM with a stable shape and where kg and xg are respectively the thermal conductivity and thickness
high thermal conductivity. In our previous work, a new shape-stabilized of the glass cover. The radiative hrgos and convective hcgoa heat transfer
PCM (SSPCM) was developed which is a paraffin wax/high density coefficient between the glass cover and surrounding are given in Ap-
polyethylene (HDPE)/expanded graphite composite material [29]. pendix.
Many of modified experiments and novel studies showed and confirmed Inner surface of the glass cover [33]:
that the new SSPCM was characterized with a stable shape and high
thermal conductivity [30–32]. Therefore, based on the previous studies I g A g + (h ewgi + h cwgi + hrwgi )A w (Tw Tgi) =
g
A g (Tgi Tgo)
on the SSPCM, this paper focused on applying the new SSPCM to solar xg (6)
still to solve the problems by the conventional PCM-solar still systems.
hewgi, hcwgi and hrwgi are denote evaporative, convective and radiative
Both the experimental and theoretical investigation on performance of
heat transfer coefficient between basin water and the glass cover and
solar still with SSPCM was done in this paper. Specially, the effect of
are written according to Dunkle's relation [33,34] (see the Appendix).
thermal properties of SSPCM on the daily productivity of this system
Absorber surface:
was concerned. Finally, the cost analysis was performed to evaluate the
economic performance of the solar still. I g w pAp = h cpw Ap (Tp Tw) + hp Ap (Tp TPCM,0) (7)

where hcpw represents convective heat transfer coefficient between

2. Mathematical model
absorber surface and basin water (see the Appendix).
Basin water [33]:
A mathematical model is established to analyze the effect of the
thermal physical properties of the SSPCM on the performance of the I g w Aw + h cpw Ap (Tp Tw) = (h ewgi + h cwgi + hrwgi )A w (Tw Tgi)
solar still. The energy balance equations of various components of the dT
solar still are solved to obtain the temperature of the glass cover, basin + mw C w w
dt (8)
water, absorber surface and the SSPCM as a function of time. The fol-
lowing assumptions are applied to simplify the mathematical model.
·The solar still is well sealed without vapor leakage. 2.2. Productivity and efficiency
·The side heat losses of the solar still is negligible.
·The thermal capacity of the glass cover and the insulating material The productivity of the solar still per square meter can be calculated
is neglected. as
·Basin water has no temperature gradient across its thickness.
mew = hewgi (Tw Tgi)/ L w (9)

2.1. Energy balance equations of various components The overall thermal efficiency of the solar still can be obtained as
m ew L w
An energy equation for the SSPCM is written using the apparent = × 100%
I t (10)
heat capacity method. This method treats the latent heat of phase
change as a sensible heat treatment in a small temperature range. So we where Lw is the latent heat of vaporization of water. Δt is the time in-
can establish a unified energy equation in the whole region and convert terval for measuring solar radiation.
the problem of sub-region solving into a non-linear problem in the The explicit difference scheme is adopted for solving Eqs. (1) and
entire region. It is worth mentioning that the temperature gradient of (8). The time step and space step are 1 s and 3 mL respectively during
the SSPCM is considered in order to study the effect of thermal con- the simulation solution. The weather conditions used in numerical si-
ductivity on charging/discharging process of the SSPCM. mulation are typical summer climatic conditions. Solar radiation and
ambient temperature are measured from 8 am to midnight on 06/06/
TPCM TPCM
PCM Ceff = PCM 2018. The values of solar radiation and ambient temperature are used
t x x (1)
as input. The values of the relevant parameters for the mathematical
where Ceff is the effective heat capacity of the SSPCM and can be model calculation are given in Table 1.
written as follows:
Ceff = Cs,PCM for TPCM < Tm. 2.3. Economic analysis
Ceff = (Cs,PCM + Cl,PCM)/2 + LPCM / T for Tm < TPCM < Tm + T
Economic analysis is essential to evaluate whether a still can be
Ceff = Cl,PCM for TPCM > Tm + T
commercialized on a large scale. Therefore, an economic analysis is
where Tm is the melting point and ΔT is the width of the phase tran- conducted for the solar still of present experimental work.
sition range. The first annual cost of the system (AC), can be determined as [35]:
Initial condition: AC = CC × CRF (11)
TPCM = T0, t = 0 (2) where CC is the capital cost of the system and CRF is the capital re-
covery factor. CRF can be determined by [35]:
where T0 represents the initial temperature of SSPCM.
Boundary condition:
Table 1
x = 0, qx = 0 = h p (Tp TPCM,0 ) (3) Relevant parameters used for calculations.
Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value
x = , qx = = hb (TPCM, Ta ) (4)
2
Ap (m ) 0.36 τg 0.85 xg (m) 0.003
where ‘x = 0’ represents top surface of SSPCM and ‘x = δ’ represents Aw (m2) 0.36 εw 0.96 λins (W/m K) 0.031
bottom surface of SSPCM. Ag (m2) 0.45 εg 0.88 xins (m) 0.05
Outer surface of the glass cover [33]: αw 0.05 σ(W/m2 K4) 5.67 × 10−8 Cw (J/kg K) 4190
αg 0.04 V (m/s) 3.2 Cs,PCM (J/kg K) 2950
g αp 0.92 λg (W/m K) 0.85 Cl,PCM (J/kg K) 2510
A g (Tgi Tgo) = hrgos A g (Tgo Tsky) + h cgoa A g (Tgo Ta) τw 0.90 λw (W/m K) 0.628 LPCM (J/kg) 195,000
xg (5)

91
W.-L. Cheng et al. Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99

3. Experimental work

3.1. Solar still design

In this section, the specific details of the experimental setup are

described. In order to evaluate the impact of the SSPCM on the per-
formance of solar still, two solar stills are designed to have the same
shape and dimensions for comparison experiments. The conventional
solar still is without the SSPCM and its absorber plate is a stainless steel
plate coated with a black paint. For the modified solar still, the SSPCM
with 5 wt% expanded graphite is used as absorber plate and energy
storage material. A photographic view of the SSPCM is shown in Fig. 1.
As shown in Fig. 2, each solar still consists of a pyramid shape glass
cover and a stainless steel basin. Fig. 3 shows a schematic diagram of
the pyramid-shaped solar still. A 60 cm ∗ 60 cm ∗ 10 cm basin is made of
stainless steel with 1 mm of thickness and the inside surface of the basin
is painted black to enhance the absorption of solar radiation. In order to
reduce the heat loss of the basin water to the surrounding environment,
the basin is insulated by rock wool that is filled with a 5 cm gap formed
Fig. 1. A photographic view of SSPCM. by the basin and a stainless steel shell. A 3 mm thickness glass which is
cut in the pyramid shape covers the top of the basin, and it is inclined
r(1 + r) n by 32° to the horizontal. A pyramid shape cover has the advantage of
CRF =
(1 + r) n 1 (12) reducing the shadow effect and increasing the condensation area
compared with a single slope solar still. An inclined stainless steel
where r is the interest rate of lending banks and n is the life of the trough was made along the inner wall of the basin. Its role is to collect
system. Interest rate of lending banks is considered to be 8%. The life of the distillate condensed on the glass. A plastic pipe connected to the
the system assumed to be 10 years. trough drains the collected fresh water into a bottle. Silicon is used as a
The first annual salvage value of the solar still (AS) is obtained as sealant between the glass cover and the basin to ensure a good seal of
[35]: the solar still to avoid vapor loss. Both solar stills are added to the same
mass of tap water (2 cm depth). When the absorber plate absorbs solar
AS = S (SFF ) (13) radiation to increase its temperature, basin water is heated and starts to
evaporate. The uprising water vapor condenses on the lower tempera-
where S and SFF denote the salvage value of the system and sinking ture glass, and the condensed water droplets run down to the bottle
fund factor. The salvage value of the system equal to 20% of the capital along the inclined glass.
cost. Sinking fund factor of the system is defined by [35]:

r 3.2. Measurements and uncertainty analysis

SFF =
(1 + r )n 1 (14)
The experimental work was performed in a typical summer climate
The annual maintenance cost (AMC) is 12% of the first annual cost. condition at the University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei
The total annual cost of the solar still, TAC, is given by: (Latitude 117.26°N and longitude 31.84°E), China.
Basin water temperature, glass temperature, SSPCM temperature,
TAC = AC + AMC AS (15)
absorber surface temperature and ambient temperature are measured
The cost per liter, CPL, is calculated as: by T-type thermocouples (Range:−40–125 °C and Accuracy: ± 0.5 °C),
and data is recorded in a computer via an Agilent 34970A data logger.
CPL = TAC M (16) A pyranometer (0–2000 W/m2, ± 3 W/m2) is used to measure solar
radiation intensity. A measuring cylinder (0–500 mL, ± 5 mL) is used to
where M is the mean annual production. measure the volume of the produced fresh water. All measurements are
measured every hour. The daily thermal efficiency of the solar still is
calculated by Eq. (10). The standard uncertainty of measurements and

Conventional still Modified still Data acquisition system

Laptop Radiation Temperature

Distillation units logger logger

Fig. 2. A photographic view of experimental setup.

92
W.-L. Cheng et al. Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99

Collection trough
Glass cover

Basin water
Insulation
SSPCM
Distilled
water

T-type
thermocouples

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the pyramid solar still with the SSPCM.

Table 2 0.95
Experimental uncertainty analysis.
Instrument Accuracy Range Standard Error %
0.94
uncertainty
0.93
Thermocouple ± 0.5 °C -40-125 °C 0.289 °C 2.17 Spectral absorption
Pyranometer ± 3 W/m2 0–2000 W/m2 1.732 W/m2 5.26
Measuring ± 5 mL 0–500 mL 2.887 mL 10.00
0.92
cylinder
0.91

the uncertainty of the daily thermal efficiency are calculated according 0.90
to Eqs. (17) and (18) [36]. The maximum uncertainty of daily thermal
efficiency is 0.0132. The minimum error of any instrument is equal to 0.89
the ratio between its least count and the minimum value of the output
measured. The standard uncertainty and errors of instruments are listed 0.88
in Table 2.
0.87
u = a/ 3 (17) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

where a and u represent the accuracy of instrument and the standard Wavelength (nm)
uncertainty, respectively. Fig. 4. The spectral absorption of the SSPCM with 5%wt expanded graphite.
0.5
u(m ew )2 u(I) 2
u( ) = +
m ew 2 I2 (18) Table 3
Physical properties of the SSPCM.
Properties Values

4. Results and discussion Melting point temperature (°C) 46

4.1. Material characteristics
The SSPCM with 5 wt% expanded graphite content, as an energy
storage material, was prepared. Solar absorption of the sample is
measured by UV-VIS-NIR Spectrometer (SHIMADZU SOLID 3700) and
its solar absorption is around 0.94, as shown in Fig. 4. The reason that
the SSPCM has such a high solar absorption is as follows. First, the
expanded graphite, as a carbon material, can highly efficient in har-
vesting the solar energy. Besides, the expanded graphite is evenly dis-
tributed and closely arranged in the SSPCM. Therefore, as an energy
storage material with high efficiency of photo-thermal conversion, the
SSPCM can replace a conventional metal absorber plate to avoid the
bad contact between metal absorber plate and PCM. The thermal con-
ductivity of the SSPCM is measured using Hot Disk thermal constants
analyzer (TSP2500s). Its thermal conductivity value is 1.50 W/m K,
which is more than 6 times that of paraffin wax. This is conducive to the
charging/discharging of heat. The physical properties of the SSPCM are
summarized in Table 3.
Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 1.50
Liquid/solid heat capacity (J/kg) 2950/2510
Latent heat (J/kg) 195,000
Solar absorption 0.94
4.2. Experimental results and discussion
An experiment was performed for the solar still using the SSPCM
with 5 wt% expanded graphite on 06/06/2018. The hourly variation of
ambient temperature and solar radiation during the experiment are
shown in Fig. 5a. It is found that ambient temperature and solar ra-
diation gradually increase with time until reaching a maximum value
and then decrease. The highest temperature appears between 1 pm and
2 pm, and the maximum value of solar radiation appears at noon.
Fig. 5b shows the hourly variation of basin water temperature and
glass temperature for conventional solar still and modified solar still, as
well as the SSPCM temperature at the top and bottom in the modified
solar still. It can be observed that at the beginning of the experiment,
basin water temperature for both conventional solar still and modified

93
W.-L. Cheng et al. Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99

34 1000 65
a 06/06/2018 Ambient temperature
Solar radiation
b 60
06/06/2018

32
800
55
Ambient temperature (oC)

Solar radiation (W/m2)

30 50

Temperature (℃)
600
45
28 Water Temperature
40 Modified still
400 Conventional still
26 35 Glass Temperature
Modified still
200 30 Conventional still
24 HCE-SSPCM Temperature
25 Top
Bottom
22 0 20
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)
0.4 4.0
c 06/06/2018 Modified still
Conventional still
d 06/06/2018
Modified still
3.5

Accumulated productivity (L/m2)

Conventional still
Hourly productivity (L/m2)

0.3 3.0

2.5

0.2 2.0

1.5

0.1 1.0

0.5

0.0 0.0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)

Fig. 5. a) Solar radiation and ambient temperature versus time; b) Hourly variation of basin water temperature, glass temperature and the SSPCM for conventional
still and modified still; c) Hourly productivity for conventional and modified still; d) Accumulated productivity for conventional and modified still.

solar still increase and both basin water temperature is almost the same. the top surface of the SSPCM converts solar energy into heat energy and
But from about 10 am to 2 pm, basin water temperature of the modified stores a part of heat energy. The SSPCM temperature reached its
solar still is lower than that of the conventional solar still. This is due to maximum around 3 pm and the energy storage ended. Then, as the solar
the fact that melting of the SSPCM in the modified solar still causes a radiation weakens and the ambient temperature decreases, the SSPCM
portion of the heat to be stored in the SSPCM, resulting in less heat used discharges heat to heat the basin water, causing the SSPCM temperature
to heat basin water. The maximum water temperature reaches 57 °C at to drop. Besides, the SSPCM temperature changes slowly from 11 am to
2 pm for the conventional solar still and the maximum water tem- 2 pm and from 6 pm to 10 pm. The reason is that it undergoes phase
perature reaches 56 °C at 3 pm for the modified solar still. After around change and charges/discharges a large amount of latent heat. In short,
3 pm, basin water temperature of the solar modified still is higher than the SSPCM absorbs solar energy to heat basin water during the daylight
that of the conventional solar still. This is because that the SSPCM plays and discharges stored energy to heat basin water at sunset. The top of
the role of a heat source when the solar radiation decreases and after the SSPCM temperature is always slightly higher than the basin water
the sunset. In particular, the SSPCM has a significant effect after the temperature during the experiment.
sunset (around 6 pm). Besides, it is obtained from Fig. 5b that the Hourly productivity and accumulated productivity for both con-
temperature difference between the basin water and the glass cover is ventional solar still and modified solar still are presented in Fig. 5c and
bigger for the modified solar still after the sunset. This means that it is Fig. 5d. As shown in Fig. 5c, the maximum hourly productivity of the
more conducive to the evaporation of basin water. modified solar still is 0.36 L/m2 at 3 pm, while the maximum hourly
According to the temperature variation of the SSPCM in Fig. 5b, we productivity of the conventional solar still is 0.28 L/m2 at 3 pm. In
can get the working mechanism of the SSPCM. From the beginning of addition, the hourly productivity of the conventional solar still is
the experiment, the SSPCM temperature gradually increases because slightly higher than that of modified solar still from 10 am to 1 pm. This

Table 4
Productivity, daily productivity rise and efficiency for some test days.
Date Daily productivity (L/m2) Daily productivity rise (%) Daily efficiency (%)

Conventional still Modified still Conventional still Modified still

06/06/2018 2.38 3.41 43.3 29.4 42.3

08/06/2018 2.39 3.44 43.9 29.1 42.0
12/06/2018 2.42 3.45 42.5 28.6 40.8

94
W.-L. Cheng et al. Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99

a 70
Experimental value b
0.50
Experimental value
Theoretical value 0.45 Theoretical value
60 RMSD=5.49% 0.40 RMSD=14.82%

Hourly productivity (L/m2)

Water temperature (oC)

0.35

50 0.30

0.25

40 0.20

0.15

30 0.10

0.05

20 0.00
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)

Fig. 6. The comparison of the experimental and theoretical values. a) water temperature; b) hourly productivity.

4.00 water, which is more conducive to evaporative heat transfer. As shown

in Fig. 5d, the daily productivity of the modified solar still is 3.41 L/m2,
3.95 Productivity 54
Percentage of increasing productivity %
Percentage of increasing productivity
3.90 52 while the daily productivity of the conventional solar still is 2.38 L/m2.
3.85 Tpcm=46oC
50 The daily productivity of the modified solar still increases by 43.3%
3.80 compared with that of the conventional solar still. The daily thermal
Productivity (L/m2)

3.75 48
efficiency is 29.4% and 42.3% for the conventional and modified solar
3.70
46 still, respectively.
3.65
44
In order to ensure the stability of performance of the solar still, we
3.60
did two more experiments under similar weather conditions. The daily
3.55 42 productivity, the percentage increase in daily productivity and effi-
ciency for conventional solar still and modified solar still are listed in
3.50
40
Table 4. It is clear that the value of these parameters fluctuates in a
3.45
38
small range.
3.40
3.35
36
3.30
0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.3. Model validation
Thermal conductivity (W/m K)
The mathematical model is validated by comparison with the ex-
Fig. 7. Daily productivity and augmentation in daily productivity for SSPCMs
perimental data obtained in 06/06/2018. The weather conditions
with different thermal conductivity.
which were measured in 06/06/2018 are used in mathematical models.
As shown in Fig. 6a and Fig. 6b, the comparison of water temperature
is because that part of the solar energy is stored in the material instead and hourly productivity between theoretical and experimental results
of dissipating to surroundings. After sunset, for the conventional solar show a fair agreement.
still, its output is almost zero; however, the modified solar still is sig-
nificant higher than that of modified solar still. The reason is that the
SSPCM releases heat to the basin water to maintain a high operating 4.4. Theoretical results and discussion
temperature. At the same time, the low ambient temperature creates a
larger temperature difference between the glass cover and the basin Several thermal conductivity values of the SSPCM are selected to
analyze the effect of thermal conductivity on the productivity of the

65 65
a 60
b 60
Tpcm=46oC
k=0.2W/m K
k=2.0W/m K
55 55
SSPCM temperature (oC)

Water temperature (oC)

50 50

45 45

40 40

35 o 35
Tpcm=46 C
30
k=0.2W/m K Top 30
k=0.2W/m K Bottom
25 k=2.0W/m K Top 25
k=2.0W/m K Bottom
20 20
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)

Fig. 8. The temperature variation curves for solar stills using two SSPCMs with 0.2 W/m K and 2.0 W/m K versus time. a) SSPCM temperature; b) water temperature.

95
W.-L. Cheng et al. Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99

a 35 Tpcm=46oC b 0.5
Tpcm=46oC
k=0.2W/m K
k=0.2W/m K
k=2.0W/m K k=2.0W/m K
30

Hourly productivity (L/m2)

0.4
25
hewg (W/m2 K)

20 0.3

15
0.2

10
0.1
5

0 0.0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)

Fig. 9. For solar stills using two SSPCMs with 0.2 W/m K and 2.0 W/m K, a) The variation curves of the evaporative heat transfer coefficient hewg versus time; b) The
variation curves of hourly productivity.

solar still. The melting temperature of all SSPCMs is 46 °C. When the
thermal conductivity is within the range of 0.2 W/m K to 4.0 W/m K,
the daily productivity increases with the increase of thermal con-
ductivity, as shown in Fig. 7. The daily productivity increases to 3.63 L/
m2 at the thermal conductivity of 4.0 W/m K. It can be concluded from
Fig. 7 that daily productivity of modified still increases from 42.0% to
52.5% compared with that of conventional still when thermal con-
ductivity of the SSPCM increases from 0.2 W/m K to 4.0 W/m K.
To further illustrate the reasons for this result, two SSPCMs which
are different thermal conductivity are selected for a detailed analysis.
The temperature variation curves of SSPCM with 0.2 W/m K
(SSPCM0.2) and SSPCM with 2.0 W/m K (SSPCM2.0) are shown in
Fig. 8a. At the beginning of the operation of the solar still
(8 am–10 am), the temperature of both the SSPCMs rise under the in-
fluence of solar radiation, but it can be clearly seen that temperature
difference of top and bottom of the SSPCM0.2 is larger compared with
that of the SSPCM2.0. The reason is that low thermal conductivity is not
conducive to heat conduction from top to bottom. The temperature of
the SSPCM2.0 is almost constant from 10 am to 1 pm. It can be ex-
plained that the SSPCM 2.0 begins to melt at around 10 am and melt
completely at around 1 pm. However, the bottom temperature of the
SSPCM0.2 is almost constant after noon. It reveals that the SSPCM0.2 is
not completely melted during daytime. This means that the SSPCM2.0
stores more energy comparing to the SSPCM0.2 during daytime and
provide more energy to vaporize the basin water during nighttime.
Besides, the SSPCM2.0 allows the heat at the bottom of the SSPCM to be
conducted to the top at a faster rate so that the top of the SSPCM re-
mains at a higher temperature than the SSPCM0.2 after sun-off. For the
present research, the SSPCM is a heat source to heat basin water. So, the
basin water temperature of the solar still with SSPCM2.0 is maintained
at a higher temperature after sun-off, as shown in Fig.8b. Higher water
temperatures mean larger vapor pressures.
temperature of the SSPCM increases when melting temperature of the
SSPCM increases from 34 °C to 50 °C, as shown Fig. 10. When melting
temperature of the SSPCM is 50 °C, daily productivity reaches the
maximum and increases up to 3.67 L/m2. It is clear that daily pro-
ductivity of the solar still with 50 °C melting temperature of the SSPCM
increases by 57.5% compared with that of conventional solar still, as
shown Fig. 10.
Melting temperature plays a very important action for daily pro-
ductivity of the solar still. The specific impact mechanism is analyzed as
follows. The temperature curves of two SSPCMs with 38 °C melting
temperatures (SSPCM38) and 46 °C melting temperatures (SSPCM46)
are contrasted in Fig. 11a. The temperature of the SSPCM46 is higher
than that of the SSPCM38 at 9 am–12 pm and 5 pm–11 pm. This is be-
cause that the SSPCM46 charge/discharge latent heat at a higher
temperature. Therefore, basin water temperature of the solar still with
the SSPCM46 is also higher than that of the solar still with the SSPCM38
during these two time periods, as shown in Fig.11b. Higher basin water
temperatures will cause a greater temperature difference between basin
water and glass cover, especially at night. Therefore, daily productivity
of the solar still with SSPCM46 is higher than that of the solar still with
SSPCM38.
Fig.12a shows the variation curves of the evaporative heat transfer
coefficient hewg versus time for the solar stills with SSPCM38 and
SSPCM46. It can be seen from Fig.12a that the heat transfer coefficient
value of hewg for the solar still with SSPCM46 is larger than that of
4.6 60
Productivity Percentage of increasing productivity %
4.4 55
Percentage of increasing productivity
4.2 k=2.0W/m K 50
4.0 45
Productivity (L/m2)

Fig.9a shows the variation curves of the evaporative heat transfer 3.8 40
coefficient hewg versus time for the solar stills with SSPCM2.0 and
3.6 35
SSPCM0.2. It can be clearly seen that the value of hewg is very sensitive
to variation of water temperature. The value of hewg of the solar still 3.4 30
with SSPCM2.0 is smaller than the solar still with SSPCM0.2 during the
3.2 25
period from 10 am to 1 pm. But the value of hewg of the solar still with
SSPCM2.0 is larger compared with that of the solar still with SSPCM0.2 3.0 20
after 3 pm. Since the evaporative heat transfer coefficient is a key 2.8 15
parameter that determines the yield of the solar still, hourly yield
strongly depends on the value of hewg, as shown in Fig. 9b. 2.6 10
A series values of melting temperature of the SSPCM, 34 °C, 38 °C,
34 38 42 46 50
o
Melting temperature ( C)
42 °C, 46 °C, 50 °C, are used to calculate daily productivity of the solar
still. The thermal conductivity of all SSPCMs is 2.0 W/m K. It can be Fig. 10. Daily productivity and augmentation in daily productivity for the
observed that daily productivity enhances gradually as the melting SSPCM with different melting temperature.

96
W.-L. Cheng et al. Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99

a 70
k=2.0W/m K b 70
k=2.0W/m K
Tpcm=38oC Top Tpcm=38oC
60 Tpcm=38oC Bottom 60 Tpcm=46oC
Tpcm=46oC Top
SSPCM temperature (oC)

Water temperature (oC)

Tpcm=46oC Bottom
50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)

Fig. 11. The temperature variation curves for solar stills using two SSPCMs with 38 °C and 46 °C versus time. a) SSPCM temperature; b) water temperature.

a k=2.0W/m K
b 0.6
k=2.0W/m K
40 Tpcm=38oC Tpcm=38oC
0.5
Tpcm=46oC Tpcm=46oC

Hourly productivity (L/m2)

30 0.4
hewg (W/m2 K)

0.3
20

0.2

10
0.1

0 0.0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)

Fig. 12. For solar stills using two SSPCMs with 38 °C and 46 °C, a) The variation curves of the evaporative heat transfer coefficient hewg versus time; b) The variation
curves of hourly productivity.

SSPCM38 at 10 am–1 pm and 5 pm–11 pm because the water tem-
perature of the solar still with SSPCM46 is higher during these two
periods. Fig.12b shows hourly yield for the solar stills with SSPCM38
and SSPCM46. It can be clearly seen that the trend of the curve is
consistent with that of hewg.
$ and 152 US $, respectively. The cost of per liter of distillate water, for
the conventional and modified solar still are 0.0298 US $/L and 0.0243
US $/L, respectively. Table 5 shows a cost comparison between the
current work and other previous literature reports. It is found that the
cost per liter of water for modified solar still is lower than most pre-
vious studies. Therefore, the unit is economically feasible.

4.5. Cost analysis

5. Conclusion

It is assumed that the solar still of present experiment is used in

tropical areas where there is a lack of fresh water. Assuming that
working period per year is 300d due to the maintenance and rainy days.
Since the annual average climate conditions in the tropics are similar to
those in the current experiment, average daily productivity is 3.41 L/m2
and 2.38 L/m2 for the modified and conventional solar still, respec-
tively. The total cost of conventional and modified solar still are 130 US
Table 5
Cost comparison between the current work and other previous studies.
Current work
Mohamed A. Eltawil et al. [35]
S.M. Shalaby et al. [36]
A.A. El-Sebaii et al. [37]
Saman Rashidi et al. [38]
In this paper, a new kind of SSPCM was applied to the solar still. An
experimental work was carried out to prove the feasibility of the SSPCM
used in the solar still and to validate the theoretical model. The SSPCM
containing 5 wt% expanded graphite was used for an experimental
work. The theoretical model was established to analyze the effect of
melting temperature and thermal conductivity of the SSPCM on the
performance of the solar still. Finally, an economic analysis was con-
ducted for the solar still of present experimental work. The important
conclusions were summarized as follows:
CPL (US $/L) 1) The shape of the SSPCM is stable when the phase change occurs. So,
the leakage does not occur and the complex encapsulation problem
0.0243
0.0742 is avoided.
0.0718 2) Thermal conductivity of SSPCM is 1.50 W/m K, more than 6 times of
0.0392 that of paraffin wax.
0.0095 3) Solar absorption of the SSPCM is around 0.94, which can replace the

97
W.-L. Cheng et al. Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99

conventional metal absorber plate coated with black paint, and the
problem which is bad contact between the conventional metal ab-
sorber plate and paraffin wax is solved due to the shrinkage of the
paraffin wax when liquid-solid phase change occurs.
4) An experiment demonstrates that daily productivity of the solar still
with the SSPCM reaches 3.41 L/m2. Its value increases by 43.3%
compared with that of the conventional solar still.
5) Through considering the temperature gradient of the SSPCM in the
theoretical model, it can be found that the greater the thermal
conductivity, the more favorable charging/discharging of SSPCM.
The daily productivity increases with the increase of thermal con-
ductivity and the daily productivity of modified still increases from
42.0% to 52.5% compared with that of conventional still when
thermal conductivity of the SSPCM increases from 0.2 W/m K to
4.0 W/m K.
6) The daily productivity enhances gradually as the melting tempera-
ture of the SSPCM increases when melting temperature of the
SSPCM increases from 34 °C to 50 °C. When melting temperature of
SSPCM is 50 °C, daily productivity increases up to 3.67 L/m2.
7) The cost of per distillate water productivity reach 0.0298 US $/L
and 0.0243 US $/L for the solar still with and without SSPCM, re-
spectively. This is an acceptable cost compare with cost of solar still
in other studies.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation of
China (grant no. 51876198) for the financial support.

Appendix A

hrgos = eff [(Tgo + 273) 2 + (Ts + 273)2](Tgo + Ts + 546)

where
εeff is effective emissivity. We take its value of 0.9 [39];
Tsky = Ta 6.

hcgoa = 5.7 + 3.8V [40]

1/3
(Pw Pgi )(Tw + 273)
hcwgi = 0.844 Tw Tgi + .
268.9 × 103 Pw

where

5144
Pw = exp 25.317
(Tw + 273)
5144
Pgi = exp 25.317
(Tgi + 273)
Pw Pgi
h ewgi = 0.01623h cwgi
Tw Tgi
[(Tw + 273) 2 + (Tgi + 273)2](Tw + Tgi + 546)
h rwgi = 1 1
+ 1
w g

h cpw = 0.54( w X )(GrPr )0.25

wg w (Tp Tw )X3
Gr = 2
µw
Cpµ w
Pr =
w
ins
hp =
xins
L w = 3044205.5 1679.1109 × Tw 1.14258 × Tw 2

( )
2
n x exp,i x sim,i
i=1 x exp,i
× 100
RMSD=
n
where RMSD is root-mean-square deviation.

References integrated with PCM storage, Desalination 279 (2011) 415–422.

[1] A. Elfasakhany, Performance assessment and productivity of a simple-type solar still
integrated with nanocomposite energy storage system, Appl. Energy 183 (2016)
399–407.
[2] H. Tanaka, T. Nosoko, T. Nagata, A highly productive basin-type-multiple-effect
coupled solar still, Desalination 130 (2000) 279–293.
[3] H. Tanaka, K. Iishi, Experimental study of a vertical single-effect diffusion solar still
coupled with a tilted wick still, Desalination 402 (2017) 19–24.
[4] F. Sarhaddi, F. Farshchi Tabrizi, H. Aghaei Zoori, S.A.H.S. Mousavi, Comparative
study of two weir type cascade solar stills with and without PCM storage using
energy and exergy analysis, Energy Convers. Manag. 133 (2017) 97–109.
[5] M. Dashtban, F.F. Tabrizi, Thermal analysis of a weir-type cascade solar still
[6] O.O. Badran, Experimental study of the enhancement parameters on a single slope
solar still productivity, Desalination 209 (2007) 136–143.
[7] Z.M. Omara, M.H. Hamed, A.E. Kabeel, Performance of finned and corrugated ab-
sorbers solar stills under Egyptian conditions, Desalination 277 (2011) 281–287.
[8] R.A. Kumar, G. Esakkimuthu, K.K. Murugavel, Performance enhancement of a
single basin single slope solar still using agitation effect and external condenser,
Desalination 399 (2016) 198–202.
[9] E. El-Bialy, Performance analysis for passive single slope single basin solar distiller
with a floating absorber – an experimental study, Energy 68 (2014) 117–124.
[10] N. Rahim, New method to store heat energy in horizontal solar desalination still,
Renew. Energy 28 (2003) 419–433.
[11] N. Abdelal, Y. Taamneh, Enhancement of pyramid solar still productivity using
absorber plates made of carbon fiber/CNT-modified epoxy composites, Desalination

98
W.-L. Cheng et al.
419 (2017) 117–124.
[12] L. Sahota, G. Tiwari, Effect of Al2O3 nanoparticles on the performance of passive
double slope solar still, Sol. Energy 130 (2016) 260–272.
[13] L. Sahota, G. Tiwari, Effect of nanofluids on the performance of passive double slope
solar still: a comparative study using characteristic curve, Desalination 388 (2016)
9–21.
[14] D. Singh, G. Tiwari, I. Al-Helal, V. Dwivedi, J. Yadav, Effect of energy matrices on
life cycle cost analysis of passive solar stills, Sol. Energy 134 (2016) 9–22.
[15] G. Tiwari, L. Sahota, Review on the energy and economic efficiencies of passive and
active solar distillation systems, Desalination 401 (2017) 151–179.
[16] C. Chen, Y. Li, J. Song, Z. Yang, Y. Kuang, E. Hitz, C. Jia, A. Gong, F. Jiang, J.Y. Zhu,
B. Yang, J. Xie, L. Hu, Highly flexible and efficient solar steam generation device,
Adv. Mater. 29 (2017).
[17] X. Hu, W. Xu, L. Zhou, Y. Tan, Y. Wang, S. Zhu, J. Zhu, Tailoring graphene oxide-
based aerogels for efficient solar steam generation under one sun, Adv. Mater. 29
(2017).
[18] K.K. Liu, Q. Jiang, S. Tadepalli, R. Raliya, P. Biswas, R.R. Naik, S. Singamaneni,
Wood-graphene oxide composite for highly efficient solar steam generation and
desalination, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9 (2017) 7675–7681.
[19] L. Huang, J. Pei, H. Jiang, X. Hu, Water desalination under one sun using graphene-
based material modified PTFE membrane, Desalination 442 (2018) 1–7.
[20] H. Ghasemi, G. Ni, A.M. Marconnet, J. Loomis, S. Yerci, N. Miljkovic, G. Chen, Solar
steam generation by heat localization, Nat. Commun. 5 (2014) 4449.
[21] H.S. Deshmukh, S.B. Thombre, Solar distillation with single basin solar still using
sensible heat storage materials, Desalination 410 (2017) 91–98.
[22] A.E. Kabeel, M. Abdelgaied, A. Eisa, Enhancing the performance of single basin
solar still using high thermal conductivity sensible storage materials, J. Clean. Prod.
183 (2018) 20–25.
[23] A.E. Kabeel, M. Abdelgaied, Observational study of modified solar still coupled with
oil serpentine loop from cylindrical parabolic concentrator and phase changing
material under basin, Sol. Energy 144 (2017) 71–78.
[24] A.A. El-Sebaii, A.A. Al-Ghamdi, F.S. Al-Hazmi, A.S. Faidah, Thermal performance of
a single basin solar still with PCM as a storage medium, Appl. Energy 86 (2009)
1187–1195.
[25] S.W. Sharshir, G. Peng, L. Wu, F.A. Essa, A.E. Kabeel, N. Yang, The effects of flake
graphite nanoparticles, phase change material, and film cooling on the solar still
performance, Appl. Energy 191 (2017) 358–366.
[26] O. Ansari, M. Asbik, A. Bah, A. Arbaoui, A. Khmou, Desalination of the brackish
99
Desalination 455 (2019) 89–99
water using a passive solar still with a heat energy storage system, Desalination 324
(2013) 10–20.
[27] H.H. Al-Kayiem, S.C. Lin, Performance evaluation of a solar water heater integrated
with a PCM nanocomposite TES at various inclinations, Sol. Energy 109 (2014)
82–92.
[28] V. Velmurugan, S. Kumaran, N. Prabhu, K. Srithar, Productivity enhancement of
stepped solar still: performance analysis, Therm. Sci. 12 (2008) 153–163.
[29] W.-l. Cheng, R.-m. Zhang, K. Xie, N. Liu, J. Wang, Heat conduction enhanced shape-
stabilized paraffin/HDPE composite PCMs by graphite addition: preparation and
thermal properties, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 94 (2010) 1636–1642.
[30] W.-L. Cheng, B.-J. Mei, Y.-N. Liu, Y.-H. Huang, X.-D. Yuan, A novel household re-
frigerator with shape-stabilized PCM (Phase Change Material) heat storage con-
densers: an experimental investigation, Energy 36 (2011) 5797–5804.
[31] W. Cheng, B. Xie, R. Zhang, Z. Xu, Y. Xia, Effect of thermal conductivities of shape
stabilized PCM on under-floor heating system, Appl. Energy 144 (2015) 10–18.
[32] W.-W. Li, W.-L. Cheng, B. Xie, N. Liu, L.-S. Zhang, Thermal sensitive flexible phase
change materials with high thermal conductivity for thermal energy storage, Energy
Convers. Manag. 149 (2017) 1–12.
[33] A.A. El-Sebaii, S.M. Shalaby, Parametric study and heat transfer mechanisms of
single basin v-corrugated solar still, Desalin. Water Treat. 55 (2014) 285–296.
[34] R.V. Dunkle, Solar Water Distillation: The Roof Type Still and a Multiple Effect
Diffusion Still, Proc. International Heat Transfer Conference, University of
Colorado, U.S.A, 5 (1961), p. 895.
[35] M.A. Eltawil, Z. Zhengming, Wind turbine-inclined still collector integration with
solar still for brackish water desalination, Desalination 249 (2009) 490–497.
[36] S.M. Shalaby, E. El-Bialy, A.A. El-Sebaii, An experimental investigation of a v-cor-
rugated absorber single-basin solar still using PCM, Desalination 398 (2016)
247–255.
[37] A.A. El-Sebaii, M. El-Naggar, Year round performance and cost analysis of a finned
single basin solar still, Appl. Therm. Eng. 110 (2017) 787–794.
[38] S. Rashidi, N. Rahbar, M.S. Valipour, J.A. Esfahani, Enhancement of solar still by
reticular porous media: experimental investigation with exergy and economic
analysis, Appl. Therm. Eng. 130 (2018) 1341–1348.
[39] M. Hamdan, A. Musa, B. Jubran, Performance of solar still under Jordanian climate,
Energy Convers. Manag. 40 (1999) 495–503.
[40] P.K. Srivastava, S.K. Agrawal, Winter and summer performance of single sloped
basin type solar still integrated with extended porous fins, Desalination 319 (2013)
73–78.