Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination

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

Heat transfer coefficients and yield analysis of a double-slope solar still

hybrid with rubber scrapers: An experimental and theoretical study
Ali Omran Al-Sulttani a, Amimul Ahsan a,b,⁎, Ataur Rahman c, N.N. Nik Daud a, S. Idrus a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, and Institute of Advanced Technology, University Putra Malaysia, 43400, UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Housing Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, 43400, UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
c
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia

H I G H L I G H T S

• A new double-slope solar still hybrid with rubber scrapers is designed.

• It has a small slope of the condensing cover of the solar still.
• It allows more solar radiation to enter the still.
• It avoids falling down of the condensation drops back to basin water.
• The productivity of this new model is increased by 63%.

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

Article history: In this study, a new double-slope solar still hybrid with rubber scrapers (DSSSHS) and a double-slope solar still
Received 20 September 2016 (DSSS) were designed, manufactured and tested. The proposed design of DSSSHS makes use of the advantages
Received in revised form 22 December 2016 of using a small slope of the condensing cover of the still that allows higher solar radiation to enter into the
Accepted 23 December 2016
still. Disadvantages resulting from using the small slope are overcome by using the rubber scrapers. No researcher
Available online 3 January 2017
has yet used the scrapers in solar still. Experimental measurements and results were used to calculate the theo-
Keywords:
retical values of convective and evaporative heat transfer coefficients, in addition to the theoretical values of the
Double-slope yields. Results of the two models were compared to evaluate the advantages of using rubber scrapers in the new
Rubber scrapers model. Using rubber scrapers in DSSSHS model enhanced the total internal heat transfer coefficient (h1) as well
Hybrid solar still as the productivity. The maximum recorded value of the total internal heat transfer coefficient for the DSSSHS is
Heat transfer coefficient found as 38.754 W/m2 °C and the daily yield as 4.24 L/m2 day with productivity improvement of 63%, for the case
Yields when the inclination angle of the glass cover is quite small (about 3.0°).
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the last four decades, solving fresh water shortage problem has
become a great challenge to many nations around the globe. Potable
water is vital for our existence; however, non-potable water is also im-
portant to meet agricultural and industrial demands. Despite that more
than three quarters of the earth is covered with water, only 0.014% is
potable. Conversely, sea water constitutes 97.5% of global water; this
water can be purified by distillation to be suitable for human use [1].
Many countries suffer from shortage of natural fresh water. Increasing
amounts of fresh water will be required in the future as a result of the
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, and Institute of Advanced
Technology, University Putra Malaysia, 43400, UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
E-mail addresses: amimul@upm.edu.my, ashikcivil@yahoo.com (A. Ahsan).
rise in population and higher living standard, as well the expansion of
industrial and agricultural activities [2].
Therefore, finding sustainable, safe, cheap, and environment-friend-
ly techniques to produce potable water from salty water is necessary.
The best solution to this problem is solar distillation; this process is
safer for the environment and uses only sustainable energy [3]. Solar
distillation is a desalination method with many advantages, including
the ability to reduce or solve the problem of potable water shortage in
the future, especially in arid, coastal, remote, and rugged areas. Thus,
in the last three decades, many researchers and scientists have conduct-
ed studies to improve fresh water production and/or efficiency of a con-
ventional solar still, which simply works based on the principles of
evaporation and condensation. These improvements increase the effec-
tiveness of solar distillation technique in solving potable water shortage.
Many researchers have investigated various types of solar stills, such
as weir type [4], simple single basin [5], active double slope [6], tubular

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.12.017
0011-9164/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
62 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74
solar still [7] and portable thermoelectric solar still [8]. Tests were also
conducted to increase the productivity of solar stills by using the follow-
ing designs: double-glass glaze where brine flows between them [9],
utilizing water and air flow [10,11], sponge cubes of different sizes in
the still basin [12], a built-in sandy heat reservoir [13], increasing con-
densation area [14,15], parabolic concentrator with focal pipe and
heat exchanger [16], solar collector with water sprinkling system and
thermoelectric cooling device [17], tubular and triangular still [18–22],
fin at the basin of the still [23–25], parabolic concentrator tubular
solar stills [26–28], internal and external reflectors [29–31], vinyl chlo-
ride sheet and polythene film transparent tubular covers [32], thermo-
electric cooler [33], low cost technique [34–36], forced convection
inside the solar still [37,38], optimized position and size partition inside
a single slope solar still [39] and nanomaterials with and without a vac-
uum fan [40]. The parameters affecting the performance of solar stills
were studied to improve the yield [41–43]. Theoretical and numerical
studies were also reported for estimating the productivity and the con-
vective heat transfer coefficient in solar stills [44–47].
The best inclination of the condensing cover to give the highest yield
through receiving maximum solar radiation varies from season-to-sea-
son. However, it should be optimized from the annual yield perspective.
Many researchers reported that the best cover inclination angle is near
[48–50] or nearly equivalent [5,51–57] to the latitude angle. Some other
researchers concluded that this angle should be far from the latitude
angle [58–62]. Data and results from previous studies were obtained
[57] for different locations, climate conditions, and solar still shapes; a
trend for the variation between the latitude and optimum inclination
angles for the cover was established. That is, when the latitude angle
for the experiment location is increased, the inclination angle of the
condensing cover should also increase. In addition, the trend showed
that the best inclination angle for the condensing cover is close to the
latitude angle of the experiment's location. The minimum inclination
of the glass cover should be at least 10° to avoid falling and/or slowing
down the condensate [63].
Most of previous studies have shown that the best productivity is
achieved when the condensing cover slope is the same as the latitude
angle of the experiment location. However, problems that result from
the reduction in productivity when the condensate water stays on the
inner surface of a small inclination condensing cover for a relatively
long time before collection were not resolved. Productivity reduction
occurs when the condensate film decreases the total amount of solar ra-
diation that enters the solar still or when this condensate fall toward the
basin because of gravitational force or re-evaporate when exposure to
solar radiation.
In this study, a double-slope solar still hybrid with rubber scrapers
(DSSSHS) is designed for the first time with a 3.0° slope condensing
cover, which is equal to the latitude angle of the experiment location
(latitude N 3° 0′ 27.71″, longitude E 101° 43′ 15.24″ and 45 m height
from sea level). The main aim is to obtain maximum fresh water yield
during daytime using the DSSSHS. The proposed design makes use of
the advantages of using the small slope of the condensing cover of the
still. This allows higher solar radiation to enter into the still. Disadvan-
tages resulting from using the small slope are solved by using the rubber
scrapers. No researcher has used the scrapers in solar still till to-date.
These rubber scrapers have water guides (made of aluminum) with a
suitable slope and are fixed to collect scraped water during movement
of the rubber scrapers without allowing the fall of water drops toward
the basin of the still.
2. Methodology
2.1. Experimental setup
In the current study, two solar stills are designed, manufactured, and
tested to study and compare their effectiveness. The first one is a dou-
ble-slope solar still (DSSS) and the second one is DSSSHS. Both stills
are installed in a fixed east–west orientation. The movements of rubber
scrapers of DSSSHS are achieved by using two 12 V DC motors, which
are operated using DC current supplied from two 12 V, 150 Ah DC bat-
teries. The DC batteries are powered by a charger, which obtains its
power from a 12 V, 200 W/h DC solar photovoltaic panel. The system
also consists of a feeding tank of saline water. All six faces of this tank
are made of aluminum which is non-transparent. All external faces of
this tank, except the one facing the sun, are insulated from the ambient
air using 19 mm-thick nitrite foam (insulation sheet). Its thermal con-
ductivity equals to 0.038 W/m K and density equals to 70 kg/m3. The
external face opposite to the sun is blackened with paint to increase
its solar radiation absorptivity, which in turn increasing the water tem-
perature inside this tank because of conductive heat transfer from the
tank to the water.
Two PVC water hoses are insulated from the ambient air with 10-
mm-thick nitrite foam (insulation pipes). Its thermal conductivity
equals to 0.038 W/m K and density equals to 70 kg/m3. Then, they are
connected to the main feeding tank to supply the two solar stills with
saline water via floating valves. Two colored rulers are fixed on the op-
posite sides of each basin base of the stills to ensure depth adjustment of
saline water in both solar stills. Thermocouples (K-type model, Omega
Engineering, USA) are fixed in different locations, inside and outside
the solar stills, to measure the basin, saline water, air inside the solar
stills, and glass temperatures. The thermocouples are linked with a
data logger (model GL 800, Graphtec Corporation, Yokohama Japan)
to record temperatures every 5 min. Fig. 1 illustrates the experimental
setup.
Fig. 2 shows the schematic diagram of DSSSHS. This still consists of
an aluminum rectangular base. The still dimensions are as follows:
each of the basin length and width is 1000 mm; basin height is
30 mm; glass sides are 1000 mm in length; two opposite ones are of
fixed height, which is 100 mm; while the other two opposite ones are
of height that starts from 100 mm at the edges, reaching 126.2 mm in
the middle of their lengths; and basin area is 1 m2. The inner faces of
the basin are painted with food grade, black paint to increase its solar
absorptivity. The thickness, thermal conductivity and density of the
basin are 3 mm, 222 W/m K and 2710 kg/m3, respectively. The base
and all sides of the basin are insulated from the outside by using 19-
mm-thick nitrite foam (insulation sheets). Its thermal conductivity
equals to 0.038 W/m K and density equals to 70 kg/m3.
Four inclined collecting channels are used to collect the condensed
water into two 3-L-capacity containers. The condensing still cover is a
2.6-mm-thick clear glass. Its thermal conductivity equals to 0.96 W/m
K and density equals to 2500 kg/m3. The cover is fixed on the edges of
the still sides with a 3.0° angle with horizontal plane, which is the lati-
tude of the experiment location, maximizing the solar radiation intensi-
ty that enters the still. Two rubber scrapers are used to scrape the
condensed water on the inner side of the condensing surface toward
the PVC collecting channels, which lead the collected condensed water
toward the collecting containers.
The movements of the rubber scrapers are achieved by using two
12 V DC motors, which are operated using DC current supplied from
two 12 V, 150 Ah DC batteries. The batteries are powered by a charger,
which obtains its power from a 12 V, 200 W/h DC solar photovoltaic
panel. This model is mounted on a hollow iron post with 100 mm diam-
eter and 1100 mm length, which can be rotated 360° in a horizontal
plane. Speed, direction, and time interval of movements of the rubber
scrapers are controlled by electrical control boards. In this study the
rubber scrapers are moving in 15 min intervals at 0.2 m/s speed. The
control boards consist mainly of DC 12 V delay relay timers, general pur-
pose relays, micro basic switch of rotary roller hinge lever, resistances,
and wiring system. These boards are operated using DC current, sup-
plied by two 12 V, 150 Ah DC batteries. To prevent any losses of collect-
ed water while scraping the condensed water, aluminum water guides
are fixed under each scraper. These guides have a suitable slope that di-
rects any amount of collected water through their open sides toward
 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74
Fig. 1. Photograph of the experimental setup.
the surrounding inclined collecting channels. All gaps are filled with
food grade silicon to prevent any leakage of saline and fresh water,
and water vapor from the solar still. DSSS has the same shape, dimen-
sions, and specifications with DSSSHS, except that the rubber scrapers
with all their related parts, such as motors and electrical control boards,
do not exist in the DSSS, as shown in Fig. 3.
Experiments are conducted at the Faculty of Engineering, UPM,
43,400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia (latitude N 3° 0′ 27.71″, longitude
E 101° 43′ 15.24″ and 45 m height from sea level) and carried out
from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for five selected days (March 30, 2016 and
April 1, 8, 9, and 11, 2016). Glass, air inside the solar still, saline water,
basin and ambient air temperatures, and solar radiation are measured
and saved in the data logger every 5 min. The hourly values of these re-
cords are calculated. Specifically, the amount of distilled water is mea-
sured every hour. Accumulated productivity during daytime is also
measured. These measurements assess DSSSHS performance under
field condition. All experiments are performed for a constant saline
water depth (19 mm). Hourly and accumulated total solar intensity,
yield, and temperatures are recorded.
Temperatures inside and outside the solar still are measured by ther-
mocouples fixed at different positions inside and outside the solar stills,
as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. One thermocouple is used to measure temper-
ature of the inner basin surface (Tb), and the other one is used to identify
saline water temperature (Tw). Another thermocouple is placed inside
the still to measure the temperature of humid air inside the solar still
(Tv); and two thermocouples measure the temperature of transparent
glass (Tg1 and Tg2). Glass temperature (Tg) which is used in this study
is the average value of Tg1 and Tg2. Ambient temperature of the surround-
ing environment (Ta) is measured by using a thermocouple, which is
placed in a shaded area outside the still. Adhesive tape is used to attach
these thermocouples properly. To obtain the actual readings for Tg1 and
Tg2, the thermocouples are covered from the outside with small pieces
of aluminum foil to reflect direct solar radiation. A pyranometer (model
8-48, Eppley Laboratory, Inc., Rhode Island USA) is placed outside the
still to measure solar radiation intensity. An electronic balance (model
EK6100i, A&D Company, Limited, California, USA) is used to measure
the hourly fresh water production during daytime.
63
The uncertainty percentage error of the experimental solar intensity
values measured by the pyranometer is between ± 0.101% and
±0.108%, for solar intensities of 955.73 and 120.7 W/m2, respectively.
The uncertainty percentage error of the experimental temperature
values measured by thermocouples is between ± 0.729% and ±
2.386%, for temperatures of 81.78 °C and 24.1 °C, respectively. The un-
certainty percentage error of the experimental yield values measured
by the electronic balance is between ±0.096% and ±0.1000% for hourly
yields of 0.824 and 0.006 L/m2 h, respectively.
2.2. Thermal model
Heat transfer mechanisms inside the solar still depend mainly on the
amount of solar radiation entering the still and other climate parame-
ters. As solar radiation penetrates the atmosphere, some of the radiation
is scattered, reflected, or absorbed by the atmosphere, gases, clouds, and
dust. Solar or global radiation is the amount of radiation reaching a hor-
izontal plane [64,65]. Heat transfer in solar still is classified as external
and internal heat transfer. External heat transfer is mainly governed
by radiation, conduction, and convection, which are independent of
one another. Internal heat transfer is due to radiation, convection, and
evaporation, wherein convection and evaporation are coupled together.
Saline water inside the still's basin is heated, and then, it evaporates be-
cause of solar energy. The vapor is then transmitted freely from water
surface toward the upper condensing cover of the still by the buoyancy
force caused by density reduction. Temperature difference between sa-
line water and glass condensing cover will circulate the humid air inside
the still, causing heat and mass transfer that is instigated by natural con-
vection. In other words, heat transfer from saline water to the condens-
ing cover inside the solar still is due to convection, evaporation, and
radiation [66].
Dunkle's model, which is widely used by many researchers, is an
empirical expression for the coefficient of convective heat transfer
[67]. In Dunkle's model, the values of constants n and C are 1/3 and
0.075, respectively. This model has been used not only in conditions
that matches the limitations of this model but also in other conditions.
Therefore, examining the validity of Dunkle's model is considerably
64 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of DSSSHS.

 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74 65

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of DSSS.

important at least under the conditions that are out of the limitations of humid air (W/m K). The coefficient of convective heat transfer from
this model. Operating temperature ranges and shapes of the condensing water to glass cover is expressed as follows:
cover affect the values of n and C. Thus, using any values of those con-
stants that are calculated under simulated conditions will garner incor- CK
hcw ¼ ðGr  PrÞn
rect results. Thus, for theoretical prediction of still performance, d
performing experiments for a certain model under known climate con- ð3Þ
ditions to find the corresponding values of n and C is necessary. After
evaluating n and C experimentally, hcw and hew can be calculated with- Grashof and Prandtl numbers can be expressed by the following
out any limitation [68]. Furthermore, to predict the performance of any equations:
type of solar still in field conditions, convective mass transfer need to be  
3
estimated [69]. Bouyancy force g  β  d  ρ2v  ΔT
Gr ¼ ¼ ð4Þ
Viscous force μ2
2.2.1. Convective heat transfer from water to glass cover
Free convection, which results from buoyancy force and density var- where g is gravitational acceleration (9.807 m/s2); β is volumetric ther-
iation of humid air inside the solar still, will cause convective heat trans- mal expansion coefficient (K−1); ρv is the density of humid air (kg/m3);
fer inside the still. Regression analysis can develop the relationship for ΔT is the temperature difference between water surface and cover (°C);
convective heat and mass transfer coefficients. The general equation and μ is the viscosity of humid air (N s/m2).
for convective heat transfer can be expressed as follows:
μ  Cv

 Pr ¼
Q cw ¼ hcw  A  T w −T g ¼ hcw  A K
 ΔT ð1Þ ð5Þ

where Cv is the specific heat of humid air (J/kg °C).

where hcw is the coefficient of convective heat transfer from water to
Temperature-dependent physical properties of humid air given by
glass cover (W/m2 °C); A is the area of basin (m2); and ΔT is the temper-
[71] are as follows:
ature difference between saline water and glass condensing cover (°C).
The hcw is a function of flow characteristics, fluid properties, operating
K ¼ 0:0244  0:7673  10−4  T v ð6Þ
temperatures, and still geometry. The relation between Nusselt number
and heat transfer coefficient can be expressed as follows [70]:
β ¼ 1=ðT v þ 273:15Þ

Nu ¼ ðhcw  dÞ=K ð7Þ

¼ CðGr  Pr Þn ð2Þ
ρv ¼ 353:44=ðT v þ 273:15Þ
where d is the characteristic length of the still (m); Gr and Pr are Grashof ð8Þ
and Prandtl numbers, respectively (dimensionless); and C and n are
constant parameters (dimensionless). These constants can be calculated μ ¼ 1:718  10−5 þ 4:620  10−8
using linear regression analysis [70], and K is the thermal conductivity of  Tv ð9Þ
66 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74

Cv ¼ 999:2 þ 0:1434  Tv þ 1:101  10−4  T2v −6:7581  10−8 In the same manner, evaporative heat transfer coefficient from
 T 3v ð10Þ water to glass cover for Dunkle's model (hewD (W/m2 °C)) can be
given as:

h  i P w −P g
hfg ¼ 3:1615  106  1− 7:616  10−4  T v ð11aÞ hewD ¼ 16:23  10−3  hcwD  ð18bÞ
T w −T g

for Tv N 70 ° C The Pw and Pg are expressed as follows [67]:

6
hfg ¼ 2:4935  10
  P w ¼ eð25:317−5144=ðT w þ273:15ÞÞ ð19Þ
 1−9:4779  10−4  T v þ 1:3132  10−7  T 2v −4:7974  10−9 T 3v

ð11bÞ P g ¼ eð25:317−5144=ðT g þ273:15ÞÞ ð20Þ

for Tv b 70° C By substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (18a), hew will be:
The coefficient of convective heat transfer from water to glass cover
"
#
for Dunkle's model is expressed by [67], which is as follows: K P w −P g
hew ¼ 16:23  10−3   C  ðGr  PrÞn 
 ð21Þ
d T w −T g
hcwD ¼ 0:884

 1 =3

 Pw −Pg
 Tw −Tg þ 3
 ðTw þ 273:15Þ ð12Þ When Eqs. (17) and (21) are substituted into Eq. (16), mew can be
268:9  10 −Pw expressed as:

16:23  10−3 K

2.2.2. Radiative heat transfer from water to glass cover mew ¼   Aw  t  C  P w −P g  ðGr  Pr Þn ð22Þ
hfg d
For small cover inclination and large width of the still, water surface
and cover are considered as parallel surfaces. The rate of radiative heat
transfer from water to glass cover is given by [67], as follows: Assuming that:


qrw ¼ hrw  T w −T g ð13Þ 16:23  10−3 K

  Aw  t  P w −P g ¼ S ð23Þ
hfg d
The coefficient of radiative heat transfer from water to glass cover is
given by [72], as follows: Eq. (22) can be rewritten as follows:
hm i

2  ew
¼ C  ðGr  Pr Þn ð24Þ
hrw ¼ εeff  σ  ðT w þ 273:15Þ2 þ T g þ 273:15 S


 T w þ T g þ 546:3 ð14Þ
Using the logarithm for both sides of Eq. (24) gives the following:
hm i
ew
The εeff can be calculated as follows: ln ¼ lnC þ n  ln ðGr  Pr Þ ð25Þ
S

 −1 Eq. (16) represents a linear equation form that can be written as fol-
1 1
εeff ¼ þ −1 ð15Þ lows:
εw εg
Y ¼ Co þ m  X ð26Þ
where εg and εw are glass and water emissivity with values of 0.90 and
0.96, respectively (dimensionless); Tg and Tw are the temperatures of Where
glass and water, respectively (°C); and σ is Stefan–Boltzmann constant,
m¼n h
which is (5.6697 × 10−8 W/m2 K4). mew i
Y ¼ ln
S ð26Þ
2.2.3. Evaporative heat transfer from water to glass cover X ¼ ln ðGr  Pr Þ
C o ¼ ln C
The amount of distilled water is calculated using the following ex-
pressions [67,73]:
Values of n and C constants can be calculated using the method of
q  Aw  t linear regression analysis [70].
mew ¼ ew ð16Þ
hfg
2.2.4. Total internal heat transfer coefficient
where Combination of convective, radiative, and evaporative heat transfer

 coefficients obtained by Eqs. 3, 14 and 18a respectively forms the total
qew ¼ hew  T w −T g ð17Þ internal heat transfer coefficient (h1 (W/m2 °C)) as:

and h1 ¼ hcw þ hrw þ hew ð27aÞ

P w −P g
hew ¼ 16:23  10−3  hcw  ð18aÞ In the same manner, total internal coefficient of heat transfer for
T w −T g
Dunkle's model (h1D (W/m2 °C)) can be given as:
where hfg is the latent heat of water vaporization (J/kg); t is time inter-
val (s); and Aw is basin area (m2). h1D ¼ hcwD þ hrwD þ hewD ð27bÞ
 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74 67

2.2.5. External heat transfer 2.3. Energy balance equations

Heat transfer from solar still to the ambient is known as external
heat transfer. This heat transfer can be classified into two types. First
one is the heat transfer from the condensing cover to the ambient
which is called top heat loss, the second is from the basin to the ambient
which is known as bottom and sides heat loss coefficient.
2.3.1. Energy balance equation for glass cover
The energy balance equation for unit area of glass cover which ex-
changes heat with water and surroundings can be written as follows
[78]:

2.2.5.1. Top heat loss coefficient ∂T g

mg C g ¼ Hg ðt Þ þ qcw þ qew þ qrw −qr;g−sky −qc;g−a ð37Þ
2.2.5.1.1. Radiative heat transfer. Radiative heat transfer rate from ∂t
glass cover to the sky (qr,g-sky (W/m2)) can be calculated as [63]:
where mg is the mass of glass cover (kg); Cg is the specific heat of glass

 cover (J/kg° C); and Hg(t) is the fraction of absorbed solar radiation by
qr;g−sky ¼ hr;g−sky T g þ 273:15−T sky ð28Þ
the glass cover (W/m2).

2
2 

hr;g−sky ¼ εg σ T g þ 273:15 þ T sky T g þ T sky þ 273:15 ð29Þ 2.3.2. Energy balance equation for water
The energy balance equation for unit area of water which exchanges
Tsky can be calculated as [74]: heat with basin liner, glass cover and surroundings can be written as fol-
lows [78]:
T sky ¼ 0:0552ðT a þ 273:15Þ1:5 ð30Þ
∂T w
mw C w ¼ H w ðt Þ þ qc;b−w −qcw −qew −qrw ð38Þ
∂t
where hr.,g-sky is the radiative heat transfer coefficient from glass cover to
the sky (W/m2 °C) and Tsky is the sky temperature (K). where mw is the mass of water (kg); Cw is the specific heat of water (J/
2.2.5.1.2. Convective heat transfer. Convective heat transfer rate from kg ° C); Hw(t) is the fraction of absorbed solar radiation by the water
glass cover to the ambient (qc,g-a (W/m2)) can be calculated as [75]: (W/m2); and qc,b-w is the convective heat transfer rate from basin liner

 to water (W/m2). qc,b-w is expressed as [76]:
qc;g−a ¼ hc;g−a T g −T a ð31Þ
qc;b−w ¼ hc;b−w ðT b −T w Þ ð39Þ
hc,g-a can be calculated as [63,75]
where hc,b-w is the convective heat transfer coefficient from basin
hc;g−a ¼ 2:8 þ 3:0V ð32Þ liner to water (W/m2°C) which can obtained from the following
equations [56]:
where hc,g-a is the convective heat transfer coefficient from glass cover
to the ambient (W/m2 °C); and V is the wind speed (m/s).
1
=
kw  Raw 4
The total external heat transfer coefficient from glass cover to the hc;b−w ¼ 0:54  for Ra ¼ 104 to 107 ð40aÞ
Lw
ambient (h1g (W/m2 °C)), is the combination of radiative and convective
heat transfer coefficients which are obtained from Eqs. (29) and (32), 1
=
kw  Raw 3
respectively. hc;b−w ¼ 0:15  for Ra ¼ 107 to 1011 ð40bÞ
Lw
h1g ¼ hr;g−sky þ hc;g−a ð33Þ
where kw is the thermal conductivity of water (W/m K); Raw is the
Rayleigh number of water (dimensionless); and Lw is the character-
The top heat loss coefficient from water surface to the ambient istic length of water in the basin (m).
through glass cover (Ut (W/m2 °C)) can be expressed as [63] :

 −1 2.3.3. Energy balance equation for basin

1 lg 1 The energy balance equation for unit area of basin can be expressed
Ut ¼ þ þ ð34Þ
h1 kg h1g as follows [78]:

where kg is the thermal conductivity of glass (W/m K); and lg is the ∂T b

mb C b ¼ Hb ðt Þ−qc;b−w −qb−a ð41Þ
thickness of glass cover (m). ∂t

where mb is the mass of basin (kg); Cb is the specific heat of basin (J/
2.2.5.2. Basin heat loss coefficient. Heat loss coefficient from basin liner to
kg ° C); and Hb(t) is the fraction of absorbed solar radiation by the
the ambient (Ub-a (W/m2 °C)) can be written as [76]:
basin (W/m2).
 −1
lb l 1
U b−a ¼ þ i þ ð35Þ 3. Results and discussion
kb ki hi
Performance of each solar still was mainly affected by weather con-
where kb is the thermal conductivity of basin liner (W/m K); lb. is the
ditions, especially solar radiation, so the experimental work was done
thickness of basin liner (m); ki is the thermal conductivity of insulation
during sunny days of the year (March 30, 2016 and April 1, 8, 9, and
(W/m K); li is the thickness of insulation and hi is the convective heat
11, 2016). Figs. 4 and 5 show that peak value of solar radiation was
transfer coefficient from insulation to the ambient (W/m2 °C).
955.73 W/m2 at 3:00 p.m.
Heat loss from basin liner to the insulation by conduction and heat
loss from insulation to the ambient air by convection form the heat
3.1. Performances of solar stills
loss from basin liner to the ambient (qb-a (W/m2)), which can be written
as [77]:
Figs. 4 and 5 represent the variation of glass, air inside the solar still,
saline water, basin, and ambient air temperatures for DSSSHS and DSSS
qb−a ¼ U b−a ðTb −Ta Þ ð36Þ with daytime, respectively. Fig. 4 shows that still basin, saline water, air
68 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74

Fig. 4. Variations of hourly basin, water, air inside the still, glass and ambient temperatures, and solar intensity during daytime for DSSSHS.

inside the solar still, and glass temperatures for DSSSHS reach the max-
imum values of 81.78 °C, 76.67 °C, 69.84 °C, and 56.67 °C, respectively.
Clearly, the basin receives and absorbs most of the energy from solar ra-
diation. The increase of basin temperature and of saline water tempera-
ture in effect starts the evaporation from the water surface. The
condensed water on the inner surface of the glass cover is scraped
with two rubber scrapers toward PVC-collecting channels. Then, the
produced distilled water in the collecting containers is measured
using the electronic balance. DSSS exhibits the same performance
with DSSSHS, but its glass, air inside the solar still, saline water, and
basin temperatures are lower than those of DSSSHS. The maximum
values for basin, saline water, air inside solar still, and glass tempera-
tures for DSSS are 72.87, 70.95, 69.01, and 59.56 °C, respectively, as illus-
trated in Fig. 5. Ambient air and glass temperatures increase from the
early morning until they reach their peak values at about 4:00 p.m.
Then, they begin to decrease to the end of daytime.
For both DSSSHS and DSSS, Figs. 4 and 5 show that along daytime, sa-
line water and glass cover have a significant temperature difference. This
assists water vapor to condense on the inner side of the glass condensing
cover, increasing the amount of collected fresh water. Generally, this dif-
ference is higher in DSSSHS than in DSSS because of the advantages of
using rubber scrapers. Increasing the temperature difference between
evaporating and condensing areas will lead to productivity enhancement.
Variances of the cumulative distilled fresh water during daytime for
DSSSHS and DSSS with cumulative solar intensity are shown in Fig. 6.
The experiment is implemented at a constant height of saline water,
which is equal to 19 mm. Controlling the fixed height of saline water
is done by adding hot water from the main feeding tank of saline
water, which is controlled by a floating valve installed on a 1/2” inlet
pipe fixed to the still's basin. Figs. 6 shows that DSSSHS gives higher
yield compared with DSSS. The daily productions of fresh water for
DSSSHS and DSSS are 4.24 and 2.6 L/m2.day, respectively.
Use of rubber scrapers enhances the productivity of the still by 63%
due to increasing the solar intensity that enters the solar still and pre-
vents re-evaporation of condensate film, and avoids falling down of con-
densed water drops. Usually, the condensed water drops accumulate
and stick on the inner surface of the glass cover for relatively longer
time of an ordinary still.

Fig. 5. Variations of hourly basin, water, air inside the still, glass and ambient temperatures, and solar intensity during daytime for DSSS.
 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74 69

Fig. 6. Comparison between the cumulative hourly experimental productivities for DSSS and DSSSHS with cumulative solar intensity.

3.2. Heat transfer coefficients As mentioned previously, Dunkle's model is widely used by many
researchers, in which the values of constants n and C are 1/3 and
To evaluate the performances of DSSSHS precisely, accurate relations 0.075, respectively. This model has been used not only in conditions
for the calculation of heat and mass transfer coefficients in this solar still that matches the limitations of this model but also in other conditions.
should be used. The suggested empirical relation required for the de- Therefore, examining the validity of Dunkle's model is considerably im-
scription of analogy for heat transfer of these stills is represented by portant at least under the conditions that are out of the limitations of
Eq. (2), which is: Nu = C(Gr .Pr)n. this model [68,79].
The method of linear regression analysis is used to calculate the Fig. 9 shows the experimental results of the hourly yields according
values of n and C constants from Eq. (25). The calculated values of to this study for both DSSS and DSSSHS models with the theoretical
constants n and C for DSSSHS are 0.166 and 0.486, respectively, and hourly yields according to this study and Dunkle's model for DSSSHS.
coefficient of determination R2 for this regression analysis is 0.951. The DSSSHS model gives an excellent output, reaching the value of
R2 for regression analyses shows that dependent variable and inde- 0.824 L/m2 h, while DSSS model gives a maximum flow that is equal
pendent variables have a strong relationship. Then, the values of to 0.453 L/m2 h. Theoretical and experimental results are compared
heat transfer coefficients, hcw, hrw, and hew, are calculated directly for DSSSHS model. Statistical analysis shows that the error for DSSSHS
using Eqs. (3), (14), and (21), respectively; while hcwD is calculated model is 2.91%.
using Eq. (12) for comparison purposes. Convective heat and mass It is observed from Fig. 9 that the deviations of Dunkle's model yields
transfer coefficients are significant parameters in measuring heat (which are based on n and C values equal to 1/3 and 0.075, respectively)
and mass transfer resistance between water surface and air over are far from the experimental yields for DSSSHS. The theoretical yields
that surface. of this study which are based on the proposed values of n and C
Table 1 shows the values of convective, radiative, and evaporative (0.166 and 0.486, respectively) are very close to the experimental
heat transfer coefficients from water to glass cover for DSSSHS using yields.
this study and Dunkle's model. The highest values of convective, evapo-
rative, and radiative heat transfer coefficients from water to glass cover Table 1
in the daytime for DSSSHS according to this study are 1.479, 29.503, and Comparison of convective, evaporative and radiative heat transfer coefficients from water
to glass cover of this study with Dunkle's model for DSSSHS.
7.776, respectively and according Dunkle's model are 3.349, 66.613, and
7.776, respectively. Maximum values of radiative and evaporative heat DSSSHS (this study) DSSSHS (Dunkle)
transfer coefficients depend on solar radiation intensity and tempera- hcw hew hrw hcwD hewD hrwD
tures of the saline water and basin. Radiative and evaporative heat Time (W/m2°C) (W/m2°C) (W/m2°C) (W/m2°C) (W/m2°C) (W/m2°C)
transfer coefficients reach their peak values at 4:00 p.m. and then 09:00 0.851 2.654 5.257 1.139 3.554 5.257
trend downward to lower values at the end of daytime. 10:00 0.941 4.485 5.723 1.383 6.594 5.723
Fig. 7 shows the variation of coefficient of convective heat transfer 11:00 1.137 8.164 6.225 2.007 14.405 6.225
from water to glass cover during daytime according to this study and 12:00 1.306 14.741 6.850 2.625 29.635 6.850
13:00 1.416 21.933 7.337 3.080 47.692 7.337
Dunkle's model for DSSSHS. The results of present work have a consid-
14:00 1.470 26.361 7.579 3.315 59.436 7.579
erable difference of hcw values for DSSSHS model from its corresponding 15:00 1.479 27.854 7.665 3.349 63.072 7.665
hcwD for Dunkle's model, which agree with [68]. 16:00 1.475 29.503 7.776 3.330 66.613 7.776
Fig. 8 shows the variation of total coefficient of heat transfer for 17:00 1.345 17.928 7.104 2.780 37.061 7.104
DSSSHS during daytime according to this study (hcw) and Dunkle's 18:00 1.253 12.720 6.698 2.426 24.624 6.698
19:00 1.162 8.894 6.309 2.097 16.058 6.309
model (hcwD). The maximum values of total coefficient of heat transfer
for DSSSHS according to this study (h1) is 38.754 W/m2°C which oc- Note: DSSSHS: Double-slope solar still hybrid with rubber scrapers; hcw, hrw, and hew:
Convective, radiative and evaporative heat transfer coefficients from water to glass
curred at 4:00 p.m. High deviation between total coefficient of heat
cover for this study using Eqs. (3), (14) and (21), respectively; hcwD, hrwD, and hewD: Con-
transfer according to this study (h1) and Dunkle's model (h1D) for vective, radiative and evaporative heat transfer coefficients from water to glass cover for
DSSSHS during daytime can be noticed clearly in this figure. Dunkle's model using Eqs. (12), (14) and (18b), respectively; hrw = hrwD.
70 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74

Fig. 7. Variation of coefficient of convective heat transfer from water to glass cover hcw during daytime according to this study and Dunkle's model for DSSSHS.

As noted from Figs. 7, 8, and 9, there is a high deviation of hcw, h1, 3.3. Cost analysis
and yield (this study) values from their corresponding values of
h cwD , h1D , and yield (Dunkle's model), respectively. Therefore An economic analysis of the DSSSHS is performed where the annual
the Dunkle's model cannot be used for the performance study of fixed cost, annual salvage cost and annual maintenance cost are used for
DSSSHS. estimating the annual total cost [80].
Fig. 10 shows the relation between daily solar radiation and their The annual fixed cost (AFC) can be obtained as:
corresponding values of experimental and theoretical daily water pro-
duction of DSSSHS for five selected days (March 30, 2016 and April 1,
i  ð1 þ iÞul
8, 9, and 11, 2016). It is clear from this figure that the experimental AFC ¼  TFC ð31Þ
and theoretical values of the daily yield are directly proportional to ð1 þ iÞul −1
the solar intensity that entering into the still.
It can also note that there is a convergence between the experimen- where ul is the useful life of the still, which is taken as 20 years; TFC is
tal yields and the theoretical ones according to this study. However, the- the total fixed cost of the still; i is the rate of interest, taken as 12% of TFC.
oretical yields calculated based on Dunkle's model are far from The annual maintenance cost (AMC) is taken as 10% of AFC which
experimental values of daily water production. includes saline water filling, distilled water collection, glass cover

Fig. 8. Variation of total coefficient of heat transfer h1 according to this study and Dunkle's model for DSSSHS during daytime.
 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74 71

Fig. 9. Hourly variation of experimental and theoretical productivities for DSSSHS and experimental productivities for DSSS.

cleaning, rubber scrapers replacement, maintenance of electrical boards water for the DSSSHS is 0.03 $/kg, so the payback period of this still is
and removal of salt deposited. 376 days.
The annual salvage cost (ASC) of the still is calculated as:
4. Conclusions
i
ASC ¼  Sa ð32Þ
ð1 þ iÞul −1 In the current study, a new DSSSHS model was designed,
manufactured, tested, and operated during daytime under the climate
where Sa is the salvage value of the still taken as 20% of TFC. conditions of Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. The following conclusions
Then, the still annual total cost (SATC) can be determined by: can be drawn from this study:

SATC ¼ AFC þ AMC−ASC
The average daily productivity of the still is determined as
4.24 kg/m2. The still is expected to operate 335 days in a year as per
the sunshine duration characterizing the region of Serdang, Malaysia.
As a result, the cost of a liter of distilled water can be calculated from di-
viding the SATC by annual yield of the still. Table 2 shows the cost esti-
mation of the DSSSHS components. The economic analysis of DSSSHS is
illustrated in Table 3. This analysis clearly shows that the cost of distilled
ð33Þ 1. The DSSSHS model, in which rubber scrapers are used to scrape the
condensation drops that accumulate on the inner surface of the
glass (condensing cover), is better than the DSSS from productivity
point of view. The validity of this result is achieved by combining
the use of rubber scrapers and small slope for glass condensing
cover, which is equal to the latitude angle of the experiment's loca-
tion (3.0°). Low inclination of the glass condensing cover in low-lat-
itude location allows more solar radiation to reach the basin of the
still. This increases the temperature of the saline water inside the

y = 0.5061x - 3.1537
R2 = 0.9269

y = 0.1442x + 0.6918
R² = 0.9117

y = 0.1723x + 0 .1087
R² = 0.9738

Fig. 10. Relation between daily production and daily solar radiation for DSSSHS.
72 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74

Table 2
Cost estimation of the DSSSHS components.

Unit components Quantity Cost/unit (RM) Cost

Glass cover 1.46 m2 46.3/m2 RM 67.6 (16.15 US$)

Aluminum trough 1.124 m2 210/m2 RM 236 (56.39 US$)
Electrical boards including sensors and wiring system 2 pieces 100/piece RM 200 (47.79 US$)
DC 12 V motor 2 pieces 90/piece RM 180 (43.01 US$)
Rubber scrapers 2 pieces 8/piece RM 16 (3.82 US$)
Aluminum frame for glass 2 pieces 30/piece RM 60 (14.34 US$)
Insulation materials 1.124 m2 27.5/m2 RM 30.91 (7.39 US$)
Steel stand 1 piece 210/piece RM 210 (50.18 US$)
PVC water hose with insulation, valves and fittings Lump sum RM 80 (19.12 US$)
Silicon for sealing, black paint for trough and water collecting system Lump sum RM 65 (15.53 US$)
Pulleys, shafts, rollers and other accessories Lump sum RM 40 (9.56 US$)
Labor cost Lump sum RM 250 (59.74 US$)
Total fixed cost (TFC) RM 1435.51 (343.01 US$)

Note: 1 US$ = RM 4.185

still, thereby increasing the temperature difference between water Cw Specific heat of water (J/kg° C)
surface and glass condensing cover and further increasing the yield d Characteristic length of solar still (m)
of the still significantly. Similar phenomenon will happen when rub- g Gravitational acceleration (9.807 m/s2)
ber scrapers scrape and collect the water condensate accumulated on Gr Grashof number (5.45 × 105 b Gr b 3.39 × 106)
the inner side of the glass condensing cover. This makes the cover Hb(t) Fraction of absorbed solar radiation by the basin (W/m2).
more transparent, allowing more solar intensity to penetrate hc,b-w Convective heat transfer coefficient from basin liner to water
through it and reach the basin. The advantage of using rubber (W/m2°C)
scrapers to increase the productivity of the still is not limited to the hc,g-a Convective heat transfer coefficient from glass cover to the
increase in the solar intensity entering into the still. The use of rubber ambient (W/m2 °C)
scrapers also prevents re-evaporation and dropping down toward hcw Convective heat transfer coefficient from water to glass cover
the basin of the still of the condensate accumulated and left for rela- (W/m2 °C)
tively longer time on the inner side of the glass condensing cover. hcwD Convective heat transfer coefficient from water to glass cover
2. For DSSSHS the theoretical yields were found to be in good agree- for Dunkle's model (W/m2 °C)
ment with their experimental values. The coefficient of determina- hew Evaporative heat transfer coefficient from water to glass
tion (R2) between the theoretical and experimental yields was cover (W/m2 °C)
0.997 indicating a strong correlation. hewD Evaporative heat transfer coefficient from water to glass
3. The maximum values of hcw, hew, and mexp that obtained for the cover for Dunkle's model (W/m2 °C)
DSSSHS model were found to be 1.479 W/m2 °C, 29.503 W/m2 °C, hfg Latent heat of vaporization (J/kg)
and 0.824 L/m2 h, respectively. Hg(t) Fraction of absorbed solar radiation by the glass cover (W/
4. Using DSSSHS model enhanced the productivity by 63%, compared m2)
with the use of DSSS under the same climate conditions. hi Convective heat transfer coefficient from insulation to the
ambient (W/m2 °C)
Nomenclature hr,g-sky Radiative heat transfer coefficient from glass cover to the sky
A Surface area of the basin (m2) (W/m2 °C)
AFC Annual fixed cost of the still (US$/year) hrw Radiative heat transfer coefficient from water to glass cover
AMC Annual maintenance cost of the still (US$/year) (W/m2 °C)
ASC Annual salvage cost of the still (US$/year) hrwD Radiative heat transfer coefficient from water to glass cover
Aw Area of water (m2) for Dunkle's model (W/m2 °C)
AWP Annual water productivity (kg/year) Hw(t) Fraction of absorbed solar radiation by the water (W/m2)
C Experimental constant for Nusselt number expression h1 Total internal heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 °C)
Cb Specific heat of basin (J/kg ° C) h1D Total internal heat transfer coefficient for Dunkle's model (W/
CDWP Cost of daily water produced (US$/kg) m2 °C)
Cg Specific heat of glass cover (J/kg ° C) h1g Total external heat transfer coefficient from glass cover to the
Cv Specific heat of humid air (J/kg °C) ambient (W/m2 °C)
i Rate of interest taken as 12% of the total fixed cost of the still
Table 3 (%)
Economic analysis of the DSSSHS. K Thermal conductivity of humid air (W/m K)
Cost types Value
kb Thermal conductivity of basin liner (W/m K)
ki Thermal conductivity of insulation (W/m K)
Total fixed cost (TFC) 343.01 US$
kg Thermal conductivity of glass cover (W/m K)
Annual salvage cost (ASC) 0.95 US$/year
Annual fixed cost (AFC) 45.92 US$/year kw Thermal conductivity of water (W/m K)
Annual maintenance cost (AMC) 4.59 US$/year lb Thickness of basin liner (0.003 m)
Annual water productivity (AWP) 1420.40 kg/year lg Thickness of glass cover (0.0026 m)
Still annual total cost (SATC) 49.56 US$/year
li Thickness of insulation (0.019 m)
Cost of daily water produced (CDWP) 0.03 US$/kg
Net profit (NF) 305.54 US$/year Lw Characteristic length of water in the basin (m)
Payback period (PP) 376 days m Constant in Eq. (26)
Note: The basin area is 1 m2. The market price of distilled water (MPDW) is considered as
mb Mass of basin (kg)
0.25 US$/kg. CDWP = SATC/AWP; NF = AWP × (MPDW − CDWP); PP = (TFC / NF) × still mew Hourly theoretical distillate yields (kg)
operation days per year. mg Mass of glass cover (kg)
 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74 73

MPDW Market price of distilled water (US$/kg) Acknowledgment

mw Mass of water (kg)
n Exponent for Nusselt number expression The authors would like to express their gratitude to the support pro-
NF Net profit (US$/year) vided by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) (9460700; GP-IPS/2015/
Nu Nusselt number (dimensionless) 9460700). The first author also acknowledges the scholarship program
Pg Saturation vapor pressure of water at cover temperature (N/ from Iraq's Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research for
m2) their scientific assistance and financial support.
PP Payback period (day)
Pr Prandtl number (dimensionless)
References
Pw Saturation vapor pressure of water at water temperature (N/
m2) [1] A. Kabeel, Performance of solar still with a concave wick evaporation surface, Energy
qb-a Heat loss from basin liner to the ambient (W/m2) 34 (2009) 1504–1509.
[2] A.D. Khawaji, I.K. Kutubkhanah, J.-M. Wie, Advances in seawater desalination tech-
qc,b-w Convective heat transfer rate from basin liner to water (W/ nologies, Desalination 221 (2008) 47–69.
m2) [3] K. Murase, H. Tobata, M. Ishikawa, S. Toyama, Experimental and numerical analysis
qc,g-a Convective heat transfer rate from glass cover to the ambient of a tube-type networked solar still for desert technology, Desalination 190 (2006)
137–146.
(W/m2)
[4] S.B. Sadineni, R. Hurt, C.K. Halford, R.F. Boehm, Theory and experimental investiga-
Qcw Convective heat transfer (W) tion of a weir-type inclined solar still, Energy 33 (2008) 71–80.
qcw Convective heat transfer rate (W/m2) [5] M.A. Samee, U.K. Mirza, T. Majeed, N. Ahmad, Design and performance of a simple
qew Evaporative heat transfer rate (W/m2) single basin solar still, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 11 (2007) 543–549.
[6] V. Dwivedi, G. Tiwari, Experimental validation of thermal model of a double slope
qr,g-sky Radiative heat transfer rate from glass cover to the sky (W/ active solar still under natural circulation mode, Desalination 250 (2010) 49–55.
m2) [7] A. Ahsan, Production Model of New Tubular Solar still and Its Productivity
qrw Radiative heat transfer rate (W/m2) Characteristics(PhD thesis) 2009.
[8] N. Rahbar, J. Esfahani, Experimental study of a novel portable solar still by utilizing
Raw Rayleigh number of water (dimensionless) the heatpipe and thermoelectric module, Desalination 284 (2012) 55–61.
R2 Coefficient of determination [9] M. Abu-Arabi, Y. Zurigat, H. Al-Hinai, S. Al-Hiddabi, Modeling and performance anal-
S Constant in Eq. (23) ysis of a solar desalination unit with double-glass cover cooling, Desalination 143
(2002) 173–182.
Sa Salvage value of the still (US$) [10] T. Arunkumar, R. Jayaprakash, A. Ahsan, D. Denkenberger, M. Okundamiya, Effect of
SATC Still annual total cost (US$/year) water and air flow on concentric tubular solar water desalting system, Appl. Energy
SI Solar intensity (W/m2) 103 (2013) 109–115.
[11] A. Thirugnanasambantham, J. Rajan, A. Ahsan, V. Kandasamy, Effect of air flow on tu-
t Time interval (s)
bular solar still efficiency, Iran. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 10 (2013) 1.
Ta Ambient air temperature (°C) [12] H.M. Rababa'h, Experimental study of a solar still with sponge cubes in basin, Energy
Tb Basin temperature (°C) Convers. Manag. 44 (2003) 1411–1418.
[13] F.F. Tabrizi, A.Z. Sharak, Experimental study of an integrated basin solar still with a
TFC Total fixed cost of the still (US$)
sandy heat reservoir, Desalination 253 (2010) 195–199.
Tg Mean glass covers temperature (°C), (average of Tg1 and Tg2) [14] A. Ahsan, T. Fukuhara, Mass and heat transfer model of tubular solar still, Sol. Energy
Tg1 , Tg2 Glass covers temperatures (°C) 84 (2010) 1147–1156.
Tsky Sky temperature (K) [15] A. Ahsan, T. Fukuhara, Condensation mass transfer in unsaturated humid air inside
tubular solar still, J. Hydrosci. Hydraul. Eng. 28 (2010) 1.
Tv Vapor temperature (°C) [16] Z.S. Abdel-Rehim, A. Lasheen, Experimental and theoretical study of a solar desalina-
Tw Water temperature (°C) tion system located in Cairo, Egypt, Desalination 217 (2007) 52–64.
Ub-a Heat loss coefficient from basin liner to the ambient (W/ [17] J.A. Esfahani, N. Rahbar, M. Lavvaf, Utilization of thermoelectric cooling in a portable
active solar still—an experimental study on winter days, Desalination 269 (2011)
m2 °C) 198–205.
ul Useful life of the still (year) [18] R. Sathyamurthy, P. Nagarajan, H. Kennady, T. Ravikumar, V. Paulson, A. Ahsan, En-
Ut Top heat loss coefficient from water surface to the ambient hancing the Heat Transfer of Triangular Pyramid Solar still Using Phase Change Ma-
terial as Storage Material, Frontiers in Heat and Mass Transfer (FHMT), 5, 2014.
through glass cover (W/m2 °C) [19] A. Ahsan, N. Syuhada, E. Jolhi, K.M. Darain, M.K. Rowshon, M. Jakariya, S. Shafie, A.H.
V Wind speed (m/s) Ghazali, Assessment of distillate water quality parameters produced by solar still for
potable usage, Fresenius' Environ. Bull. 23 (2014) 1.
[20] N. Syuhada, A. Ahsan, U.A. Thomas, M. Imteaz, A.H. Ghazali, A low cost solar still for
pure water production, J. Food Agric. Environ. 11 (2013) 990–994.
Greek symbols [21] A. Ahsan, A. Rahman, A. Shanableh, N. Nik Daud, T. Mohammed, A. Mabrouk, Life
εeff Effective emissivity (dimensionless) cycle cost analysis of a sustainable solar water distillation technique, Desalin.
Water Treat. 51 (2013) 7412–7419.
εg Emissivity of glass cover (dimensionless)
[22] A. Ahsan, M. Imteaz, A. Rahman, B. Yusuf, T. Fukuhara, Design, fabrication and per-
εw Emissivity of water (dimensionless) formance analysis of an improved solar still, Desalination 292 (2012) 105–112.
σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.6697 × 10−8 W/m2 K4) [23] V. Velmurugan, M. Gopalakrishnan, R. Raghu, K. Srithar, Single basin solar still with
β Volumetric thermal expansion coefficient (K−1) fin for enhancing productivity, Energy Convers. Manag. 49 (2008) 2602–2608.
[24] V. Velmurugan, C. Deenadayalan, H. Vinod, K. Srithar, Desalination of effluent using
ΔT Temperature difference between water and inner side of glass fin type solar still, Energy 33 (2008) 1719–1727.
cover (°C) [25] Z. Omara, M.H. Hamed, A. Kabeel, Performance of finned and corrugated absorbers
μ Dynamic viscosity of vapor (N s/m2) solar stills under Egyptian conditions, Desalination 277 (2011) 281–287.
[26] T. Arunkumar, R. Velraj, A. Ahsan, A. Khalifa, S. Shams, D. Denkenberger, R.
ρv Mass density of vapor (kg/m3) Sathyamurthy, Effect of parabolic solar energy collectors for water distillation,
Desalin. Water Treat. (2015) 1–9.
[27] T. Arunkumar, R. Velraj, D. Denkenberger, R. Sathyamurthy, K. Vinothkumar, K.
Porkumaran, A. Ahsan, Effect of heat removal on tubular solar desalting system, De-
Subscripts
salination 379 (2016) 24–33.
A Ambient [28] T. Arunkumar, R. Velraj, D.C. Denkenberger, R. Sathyamurthy, K.V. Kumar, A. Ahsan,
b Basin Productivity enhancements of compound parabolic concentrator tubular solar stills,
Renew. Energy 88 (2016) 391–400.
cw Convective [29] H. Tanaka, Experimental study of a basin type solar still with internal and external
ew Evaporative reflectors in winter, Desalination 249 (2009) 130–134.
g Glass [30] Z. Omara, A. Kabeel, M. Younes, Enhancing the stepped solar still performance using
internal and external reflectors, Energy Convers. Manag. 78 (2014) 876–881.
rw Radiative
[31] M.K. Estahbanati, A. Ahsan, M. Feilizadeh, K. Jafarpur, S.-S. Ashrafmansouri, M.
v Vapor Feilizadeh, Theoretical and experimental investigation on internal reflectors in a
w Water single-slope solar still, Appl. Energy 165 (2016) 537–547.
74 A.O. Al-Sulttani et al. / Desalination 407 (2017) 61–74
[32] A. Ahsan, K.M.S. Islam, T. Fukuhara, A.H. Ghazali, Experimental study on evapora-
tion, condensation and production of a new tubular solar still, Desalination 260
(2010) 172–179.
[33] N. Rahbar, J.A. Esfahani, A. Asadi, An experimental investigation on productivity and
performance of a new improved design portable asymmetrical solar still utilizing
thermoelectric modules, Energy Convers. Manag. 118 (2016) 55–62.
[34] T. Arunkumar, D. Denkenberger, A. Ahsan, R. Jayaprakash, The augmentation of dis-
tillate yield by using concentrator coupled solar still with phase change material,
Desalination 314 (2013) 189–192.
[35] A. Ahsan, T. Fukuhara, Evaporative mass transfer in tubular solar still, J. Hydrosci.
Hydraul. Eng. 26 (2008) 15–25.
[36] T. Arunkumar, R. Jayaprakash, D. Denkenberger, A. Ahsan, M. Okundamiya, H.
Tanaka, H. Aybar, An experimental study on a hemispherical solar still, Desalination
286 (2012) 342–348.
[37] H. Ali, Effect of forced convection inside the solar still on heat and mass transfer co-
efficients, Energy Convers. Manag. 34 (1993) 73–79.
[38] H. Ali, Experimental study on air motion effect inside the solar still on still perfor-
mance, Energy Convers. Manag. 32 (1991) 67–70.
[39] S. Rashidi, M. Bovand, J.A. Esfahani, Optimization of partitioning inside a single slope
solar still for performance improvement, Desalination 395 (2016) 79–91.
[40] A. Kabeel, Z. Omara, F. Essa, Improving the performance of solar still by using
nanofluids and providing vacuum, Energy Convers. Manag. 86 (2014) 268–274.
[41] A. Ahsan, M. Imteaz, U. Thomas, M. Azmi, A. Rahman, N.N. Daud, Parameters affect-
ing the performance of a low cost solar still, Appl. Energy 114 (2014) 924–930.
[42] R. Sathyamurthy, H.J. Kennady, P. Nagarajan, A. Ahsan, Factors affecting the perfor-
mance of triangular pyramid solar still, Desalination 344 (2014) 383–390.
[43] M. Feilizadeh, M.K. Estahbanati, A. Ahsan, K. Jafarpur, A. Mersaghian, Effects of water
and basin depths in single basin solar stills: an experimental and theoretical study,
Energy Convers. Manag. 122 (2016) 174–181.
[44] N. Rahbar, J. Esfahani, Productivity estimation of a single-slope solar still: theoretical
and numerical analysis, Energy 49 (2013) 289–297.
[45] N. Rahbar, J.A. Esfahani, E. Fotouhi-Bafghi, Estimation of convective heat transfer co-
efficient and water-productivity in a tubular solar still–CFD simulation and theoret-
ical analysis, Sol. Energy 113 (2015) 313–323.
[46] N. Rahbar, J.A. Esfahani, Estimation of convective heat transfer coefficient in a single-
slope solar still: a numerical study, Desalin. Water Treat. 50 (2012) 387–396.
[47] A. Ahsan, M. Imteaz, R. Dev, H.A. Arafat, Numerical models of solar distillation de-
vice: present and previous, Desalination 311 (2013) 173–181.
[48] B.A. Akash, M.S. Mohsen, W. Nayfeh, Experimental study of the basin type solar still
under local climate conditions, Energy Convers. Manag. 41 (2000) 883–890.
[49] K. Baibutaev, B. Achilov, Effect of the Inclination of the Transparent Solar-still Sur-
face on the Condensation and Collection Processes, Appl. Solar Energy (USSR)(Engl.
Transl.);(United States) 1970, p. 6.
[50] K. Baibutaev, B. Achilov, Comparative Testing of a Solar Distiller, Appl. Solar Energy
(USSR)(Engl. Transl.);(United States) 1968, p. 4.
[51] H. Al-Hinai, M. Al-Nassri, B. Jubran, Effect of climatic, design and operational param-
eters on the yield of a simple solar still, Energy Convers. Manag. 43 (2002)
1639–1650.
[52] H. Singh, G. Tiwari, Monthly performance of passive and active solar stills for differ-
ent Indian climatic conditions, Desalination 168 (2004) 145–150.
[53] M.A. Elkader, An investigation of the parameters involved in simple solar still with
inclined yute, Renew. Energy 14 (1998) 333–338.
[54] A. Omri, J. Orfi, S.B. Nasrallah, Natural convection effects in solar stills, Desalination
183 (2005) 173–178.
[55] A.J.N. Khalifa, A.M. Hamood, Experimental validation and enhancement of some
solar still performance correlations, Desalin. Water Treat. 4 (2009) 311–315.
[56] H.Ş. Aybar, H. Assefi, Simulation of a solar still to investigate water depth and glass
angle, Desalin. Water Treat. 7 (2009) 35–40.
[57] A.J.N. Khalifa, On the effect of cover tilt angle of the simple solar still on its produc-
tivity in different seasons and latitudes, Energy Convers. Manag. 52 (2011) 431–436.
[58] W. Kamal, A theoretical and experimental study of the basin-type solar still under
the arabian gulf climatic conditions, Sol. Wind Technol. 5 (1988) 147–157.
[59] S. Aboul-Enein, A. El-Sebaii, E. El-Bialy, Investigation of a single-basin solar still with
deep basins, Renew. Energy 14 (1998) 299–305.
[60] S. Kumar, G. Tiwari, H. Singh, Annual performance of an active solar distillation sys-
tem, Desalination 127 (2000) 79–88.
[61] P. Meukam, D. Njomo, A. Gbane, S. Toure, Experimental optimization of a solar still:
application to alcohol distillation, Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 43 (2004)
1569–1577.
[62] G. Tiwari, J. Thomas, E. Khan, Optimisation of glass cover inclination for maximum
yield in a solar still, Heat Recovery Syst. CHP 14 (1994) 447–455.
[63] G. Tiwari, A.K. Tiwari, Solar Distillation Practice for Water Desalination Systems, An-
shan Pub, 2008.
[64] L.E. Akpabio, S.E. Etuk, Relationship between global solar radiation and sunshine du-
ration for Onne, Nigeria, Turk. J. Phys. 27 (2003) 161–167.
[65] R.G. Allen, L.S. Pereira, D. Raes, M. Smith, Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for
Computing Crop Water Requirements-FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, FAO,
Rome, 300 (1998) D05109.
[66] F.F. Tabrizi, M. Dashtban, H. Moghaddam, K. Razzaghi, Effect of water flow rate on
internal heat and mass transfer and daily productivity of a weir-type cascade solar
still, Desalination 260 (2010) 239–247.
[67] R. Dunkle, Solar Water Distillation: The Roof Type still and a Multiple Effect Diffu-
sion still International Development in Heat Transfer (1961), Conference at Denver,
Part 1961, p. 895.
[68] H. Khaoula, B. Ali, B.S. Rhomdanne, G. Slimane, Effects of SSD and SSDHP on convec-
tive heat transfer coefficient and yields, Desalination 249 (2009) 1259–1264.
[69] S. Aggarwal, G. Tiwari, Convective mass transfer in a double-condensing chamber
and a conventional solar still, Desalination 115 (1998) 181–188.
[70] S. Kumar, G. Tiwari, Estimation of convective mass transfer in solar distillation sys-
tems, Sol. Energy 57 (1996) 459–464.
[71] D. Jain, G. Tiwari, Thermal aspects of open sun drying of various crops, Energy 28
(2003) 37–54.
[72] J. Duffle, W. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, second ed. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1991.
[73] J. Fernández, N. Chargoy, Multi-stage, indirectly heated solar still, Sol. Energy 44
(1990) 215–223.
[74] V. Sharma, S. Mullick, Estimation of heat-transfer coefficients, the upward heat flow,
and evaporation in a solar still, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 113 (1991) 36–41.
[75] J. Watmuff, W. Charters, D. Proctor, Solar and Wind Induced External Coefficients-
Solar Collectors, 1, Cooperation Mediterraneenne pour l'Energie Solaire, 1977 56.
[76] H. Al-Hinai, M. Al-Nassri, B. Jubran, Parametric investigation of a double-effect solar
still in comparison with a single-effect solar still, Desalination 150 (2002) 75–83.
[77] Y.H. Zurigat, M.K. Abu-Arabi, Modelling and performance analysis of a regenerative
solar desalination unit, Appl. Therm. Eng. 24 (2004) 1061–1072.
[78] T. Abderachid, K. Abdenacer, Effect of orientation on the performance of a symmet-
ric solar still with a double effect solar still (comparison study), Desalination 329
(2013) 68–77.
[79] S. Aggarwal, Estimation of Convective Mass Transfer in Active Single Slope Solar still,
World Renewable Energy Congress 2000, pp. 2186–2189.
[80] A. Kabeel, A. Hamed, S. El-Agouz, Cost analysis of different solar still configurations,
Energy 35 (2010) 2901–2908.