Solar Energy 234 (2022) 392–397

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Corrigendum

Corrigendum to “Design, manufacturing, and test of a high concentration

ratio solar box cooker with multiple reflectors” [Sol. Energy 155
(2017) 781–792]
Gianluca Coccia a, *, Giovanni Di Nicola a, Mariano Pierantozzi b, Sebastiano Tomassetti a,
Alessia Aquilanti a
a
Marche Polytechnic University, Department of Industrial Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Via Brecce Bianche 12, 60131 Ancona, Italy
b
Università di Camerino, SAAD, 63100 Ascoli Piceno, Italy

The authors regret that the reported values of direct solar irradiance,
DNI, are incorrect because a wrong calibration curve for the pyrhelio­
meter data was used. In this corrigendum, the recalculated and thus
correct values for DNI, as well as all solar radiation-dependent param­
eters, are provided as follows. Figures and tables with the corrected
values are also reported.
Page 787, section “5.1. Tests without load”, second paragraph, line 4:
instead of “resulted equal to 0.39 ◦ C/(W/m2)” it should be “resulted
equal to 0.32 ◦ C/(W/m2)”.
Page 787, section “5.2. Water load tests”, first paragraph, line 2:
instead of “The average direct normal irradiance was 802.70 W/m2” it
should be “The average direct normal irradiance was 970.29 W/m2”.
Page 787, section “5.3. Peanut oil load tests”, first paragraph, lines 3
and 4: instead of “The average ambient temperature and direct solar
irradiance were, respectively, 30.80 ◦ C and 677.13 W/m2” it should be
“The average ambient temperature and direct solar irradiance were,
respectively, 30.80 ◦ C and 807.78 W/m2”.
Page 790, section “5.4. Comparison with literature”, first paragraph,
last lines: instead of “… being the average DNI higher than 700 W/m2” it
should be “… being the average DNI higher than 800 W/m2”.
The corrected Tables 2–6 are reported below. Values that differ from
those in the original paper are indicated in bold.
The corrected Figs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are shown below. For
Figs. 7, 8 and 11, the only difference with respect to the figures in the
original paper is the DNI indicated with the grey line.
Fig. 9 differs from the one in the original paper only in the legend, in
particular in the DNI values associated with the individual water tests.
The standard cooking power, Ps, and the thermal efficiency, η, are
shown in Figs. 10, 12 and 13, and were obtained using the corrected
values of DNI measured during the corresponding tests.
The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

DOI of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.07.020.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: g.coccia@univpm.it (G. Coccia), g.dinicola@univpm.it (G. Di Nicola), m.pierantozzi@univpm.it (M. Pierantozzi), s.tomassetti@pm.univpm.it
(S. Tomassetti), ale.aquilanti@libero.it (A. Aquilanti).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2022.01.015

Available online 17 February 2022

0038-092X/© 2022 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Coccia et al. Solar Energy 234 (2022) 392–397

Table 2
Summary of tests without load.

Table 3
Water load test summary. Testing parameters are referred to a time interval during which water temperature rose from 40 to 90 ◦ C.

Table 4
Peanut oil load test summary. Testing parameters are referred to a time interval
during which the oil temperature rose from 40 to 220 ◦ C.

393
G. Coccia et al. Solar Energy 234 (2022) 392–397

Table 5
Comparison with literature 1 (this work: water as testing fluid).

Table 6
Comparison with literature 2 (this work: peanut oil as testing fluid).

Fig. 7. Test without load (17/03/2017).

394
G. Coccia et al. Solar Energy 234 (2022) 392–397

Fig. 8. Water load test (18/05/2016, standard vessel).

Fig. 9. Water temperature trend.

395
G. Coccia et al. Solar Energy 234 (2022) 392–397

Fig. 10. Standard cooking power as a function of temperature difference for water (18/05/2016, standard vessel).

Fig. 11. Peanut oil load test (01/07/2016, black vessel).

396
G. Coccia et al. Solar Energy 234 (2022) 392–397

Fig. 12. Standard cooking power as a function of temperature difference for peanut oil (01/07/2016, black vessel).

Fig. 13. Thermal efficiency for peanut oil (01/07/2016, black vessel).

397