Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

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

Review article

Phase change materials for thermal energy storage applications in

greenhouses: A review
Safna Nishad , Igor Krupa *
Center for Advanced Materials, Qatar University, 2713 Doha, Qatar

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Greenhouses represent one of the largest energy-demanding sectors, requiring energy for indoor environment
Phase change material control for plant growth and crop yield. Thermal energy storage using phase change materials (PCMs) has been
Greenhouses identified as a potential solution to achieve considerable energy savings in greenhouse heating/cooling. This
Thermal energy storage
review investigates the latest technological advancements in greenhouse heating/cooling systems integrated
Heating/cooling
with PCMs. PCMs store excess heat from active or passive heating systems in greenhouses, including heaters, heat
Temperature control
Solar energy pumps, solar thermal collectors, or greenhouse northwalls. In addition, the PCMs kept inside the greenhouses are
Energy efficiency capable of providing passive cooling by the absorption of excess solar energy diurnally and passive nocturnal
heating by releasing the stored heat. Various systems integrated with PCMs provide a diurnal temperature
decrease up to 7 ◦ C and nocturnal temperature increase up to 9 ◦ C compared to the ambient temperature and can
cover up to 30% of the greenhouse heating demand. The higher installation costs of PCMs can be compensated by
the lower maintenance costs in addition to the environmental concerns raised by fossil fuels. Appropriate design
parameters should be selected based on the climatic conditions and the required environmental control to
achieve significant savings in energy and cost.

Introduction demand, thereby significantly decreasing energy consumption [5,6]. In

The recent growth in the global population necessitates increased
crop production to address food security, which is one of the principal
dimensions of sustainability [1]. Water scarcity and changes in global
climatic conditions affect conventional cultivation methods. Therefore,
greenhouse cultivation can be considered one of the sustainable solu­
tions to ensure food security. Local production, enhanced crop yield, and
extended harvests make greenhouses a feasible solution even in adverse
weather conditions. In greenhouses, the microclimate can be controlled
by proper heating, cooling, lighting, and ventilation techniques that
consume considerable energy, mostly using fossil fuels. The environ­
mental impacts of fossil fuels together with the depletion of the available
resources urge us to transition toward renewable sources, including
solar energy, geothermal heat, and biomass. Although solar energy is the
most accessible heat source, its periodic characteristics necessitate a
thermal energy storage system (TES) [2–4]. TES can stabilize the indoor
microclimate to make it suitable for plant growth and reduce the heat
general, TES systems store the excess thermal energy in the greenhouse
during the day or when the heater is turned on. This heat is discharged
during the night or when the heater is turned off to maintain the
required greenhouse indoor temperature [7].
The major TES systems adopted in greenhouses are sensible TES
using rock beds [8], water reservoirs [9] or underground pipes [10], and
latent TES using phase change materials (PCMs) [11,12]. Renewable-
powered greenhouses integrated with TES provide manageable indoor
temperature, enhanced crop yield, extended harvests, and energy sav­
ings [13,14]. PCMs store and release a substantial amount of thermal
energy at an almost constant temperature during the phase transition
[15,16]. The common phase transitions are solid–gas, liquid–gas, or
solid–liquid [17]. However, PCMs with solid–liquid transitions offer a
broad range of temperatures suitable for various uses, lower volume
changes during the transition, and higher storage densities [18,19]. The
most commonly used PCMs include salt hydrates, paraffin wax, fatty
acids, and eutectics [20].

Abbreviations: CA, Capric Acid; CO2, Carbon dioxide; COP, Coefficient of Performance; CSG, Chinese Solar Greenhouse; EVA, Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate; HRS, Heat
Recovery System; LCA, Life Cycle Analysis; LDPE, Low-Density Polyethylene; OA, Oleic Acid; PCM, Phase Change Material; PE, Polyethylene; PTT, Phase Transition
Temperature; SAHLSC, Solar Air Heater Latent Storage Collector; TES, Thermal Energy Storage.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sn1518223@qu.edu.qa (S. Nishad), igor.krupa@qu.edu.qa (I. Krupa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102241
Received 4 October 2021; Received in revised form 11 March 2022; Accepted 3 April 2022
Available online 27 April 2022
2213-1388/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Nishad and I. Krupa
The use of TES in greenhouses has been reviewed by a few re­
searchers. Paksoy and Beyhan [13] reviewed different TES systems in
greenhouses and related case studies around the world. Kurklu [21] is
among the first (i.e., in 1998) to review applications of various PCMs
including salt hydrates (calcium chloride hexahydrate and sodium sul­
fate decahydrate), polyethylene glycol, and paraffins in greenhouses to
conserve energy. Cuce et al. [6] discussed the key technologies and
strategies for sustainable energy storage in greenhouses incorporating
renewable energy sources. Cao et al. [22] conducted a comprehensive
review of sustainable energy-saving strategies to improve the microcli­
mate of Chinese solar greenhouses, including their eco-friendly features,
energy efficiency, and retrofitting options. Choab et al. [23] studied
various modeling tools for different types of greenhouses and available
technologies to supply a favorable environment for plants under
extreme weather conditions. Shukla et al. [24] studied various materials
and designs for TES systems in solar greenhouses. Sethi and Sharma [25]
reviewed all available greenhouse heating technologies and their typical
applications. Gorjian et al. [26] investigated the integration of various
renewable technologies, such as biomass, geothermal heat, and solar
energy, with TES systems in net-zero energy greenhouses. All of the
above reviews except by Kurklu [21] investigated TES systems inte­
grated into renewable energy sources for greenhouse applications with
little attention given to PCM storage. Although Kurklu compiled the
PCM applications in greenhouses a few decades back, recent techno­
logical advancements in the application of PCMs for energy storage have
not been reported yet. Therefore, in this review, the utilization of PCMs
in greenhouses integrated with active heating/cooling systems (both
non-renewable and renewable), passive systems including PCM wall­
boards, and PCM storage containers are investigated with more
emphasis on recent developments in this area. In addition, the economic
and environmental impacts of each system are analyzed to pave a path
for future studies. Before discussing TES with PCM, a brief introduction
to greenhouses, PCM, and its characteristics is given in the following
subsections.
Greenhouses
A greenhouse is an enclosure with a controlled microclimate that can
be used for farming vegetation or drying crops where sufficient heat,
light, and CO2 are provided either by natural or artificial techniques. The
crops in the greenhouses are protected from unexpected climatic con­
ditions including storms, prolonged rain, drought, temperature drop,
etc. The transparent envelope of the greenhouse made of glass or plastic
transmits only shortwave solar radiation and reflects longwave radia­
tion. The greenhouse floor and wall re-radiate the absorbed solar radi­
ation back inside the greenhouse, causing an increase in indoor air
temperature. Consequently, the greenhouse itself maintains a favorable
indoor temperature for plant growth on sunny winter days. However,
the low ambient outside temperature and the inferior thermal insulation
of greenhouse cover reduce the indoor greenhouse temperature at night.
In cold winter climatic areas, this substantial decrease in greenhouse
temperature leads to plant death. Similarly, in hot summer regions, an
increase in daytime greenhouse temperature significantly affects the
growth of plants [27]. However, suitable heating/cooling techniques
can control the greenhouse microclimate compared to the crops growing
outside.
Several greenhouse design parameters, such as size, orientation, and
shape, can influence the greenhouse indoor microclimate. The solar
radiation captured by the greenhouse is affected by these parameters,
which eventually control greenhouse indoor temperature apart from the
heat transfer coefficient of the envelope and outside ambient air tem­
perature. Since the reflected and diffused radiation from the greenhouse
wall, cover and floor can also affect the indoor temperature, appropriate
selection of greenhouse orientation and shape is important to deliver
suitable thermal comfort inside the greenhouse. As observed from pre­
vious literature [28], five common types of greenhouse shapes are
2
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241
widely used for agriculture: even-span, uneven-span, vinery, modified
arch, and Quonset types (Fig. 1). Sethi [28] studied these shapes of
greenhouses in both north–south and east–west orientations for various
climatic zones based on the availability of solar radiation (reflected,
diffuse, and beam) and its impact on the temperature inside the green­
house. Sethi reported that greenhouses oriented in the east–west
orientation obtain less solar radiation intensity during summer and more
solar radiation intensity during winter, except near the equator. More­
over, the greenhouse with an uneven-span shape received the highest
solar radiation, and the lowest solar radiation was illuminated in
Quonset-type greenhouses. Furthermore, the dynamic model developed
by Mobtaker et al. [29,30] showed that a greenhouse with a single span
obtains higher solar radiation and requires a smaller amount of energy
for heating during winter compared to the greenhouses in the above­
mentioned five shapes. However, based on the annual energy perfor­
mance of the greenhouse, several other studies concluded that east–west
oriented greenhouses with uneven-span shapes were preferable to other
shapes and north–south orientations at all latitudes [31-33]. In addition,
modification of the north wall to reduce heat loss by proper insulation
can provide a perfect design for greenhouses in cold climate conditions
[34,35].
Natural ventilation through air exchange between the greenhouse
exterior and interior is an energy-friendly process to cool the greenhouse
in summer by a pressure difference created by the temperature gradient
and wind. In addition, ventilation serves to accomplish humidity con­
trol, air circulation, and CO2 or oxygen replacement [36,37]. Under mild
climatic conditions, proper ventilation can ensure effective cooling and
a favorable environment for crop growth. Moreover, artificial ventila­
tion provided using exhaust fans and blowers can enhance the rate of air
exchange to maintain greenhouse interior temperatures close to that of
exterior temperature [38]. Nevertheless, solar radiation and ventilation
cannot cover complete cooling or heating requirements in a greenhouse.
Therefore, adding some heating or cooling sources to greenhouses is
necessary for critical situations to keep a suitable sustainable environ­
ment inside the greenhouse according to the crop and weather condi­
tions. Controlled microclimate inside the greenhouse provides increased
crop yield per area, crop quality, long harvest period, protection from
pests and disease, and local production even under extreme weather
conditions. The optimal temperature inside the greenhouse at each stage
of the crop cultivation must be provided by suitable heating or cooling
techniques. As the need for heating/cooling varies in different regions,
various technologies exist in different areas [13].
It has been estimated that to keep the greenhouse indoor tempera­
ture at approximately 15–20 ◦ C, approximately 5–6 kg/m2 of fossil fuels
are burned each year to meet the greenhouse energy demand, which is
mainly used for heating or cooling applications [39]. Although the
installation costs for conventional heating/cooling systems based on
fossil fuels are low, the greater operational costs and environmental
impacts urge us to exploit renewable sources such as geothermal heat,
wind, solar energy, and biomass. Renewable sources can be directly used
or integrated with existing conventional systems in a greenhouse to
achieve sustainable cultivation practices [26]. However, fluctuations in
the performance of renewable sources of energy necessitate coupling the
system with relevant backup resources such as thermal energy storage
(TES) systems. In TES systems, excess thermal energy is stored via a
storage medium and recovered when needed. Generally, there are three
types of TES systems: sensible TES, latent TES, and thermochemical
energy storage. In sensible TES, the sensible heat energy is absorbed
with the temperature rise and released when the temperature drops
[40]. Water and rock were used as sensible TES in greenhouses [41,42].
The latent heat energy while changing the physical state of the material
was utilized in latent TES systems [43]. PCMs were used in latent TES
systems. Thermochemical energy storage systems store and release
thermal energy through endothermic/exothermic reactions and are
rarely adopted in greenhouses due to their poor cyclic stability and ef­
ficiency [44]. The higher storage density per unit mass of PCMs and
S. Nishad and I. Krupa Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241

Fig. 1. View of five common types of greenhouse shapes. Copyright @ [28].

thermal storage at constant temperature make PCMs more attractive for c. High thermal conductivity to promote convenient charging and
environmental control applications [24]. Recently, studies on the discharging
application of PCMs to achieve thermal stability in greenhouses have d. High specific heat capacity
gained attention from various researchers [24,45,46]. The PCM stores 2. Chemical Properties
excess solar thermal energy during the day and releases it during the a. Prolonged chemical stability
night. Although the initial expenses are higher for the PCM, they are free b. Complete reversible melting/freezing cycle
from expenses and environmental pollution during operation. c. Compatibility with construction materials
d. No toxicity
Phase change materials (PCM) e. No fire hazards
3. Kinetic Properties
PCMs store thermal energy as latent heat during the change in their a. Sufficient crystallization rate
physical state, i.e., solid–gas, liquid–gas, and solid–liquid transitions b. No supercooling
with minor temperature swings. However, solid–liquid transitions are 4. Physical Properties
widely used over liquid–gas and solid–gas transformations due to their a. Small volume change
manageable volume change upon phase transition, which reduces the b. High density for smaller storage container
complexity in their storage [18]. In addition, these are available in a c. Favorable phase equilibrium, and
broad range of transition temperatures to fit various applications, d. Low vapor pressure to reduce the containment problem
including buildings, greenhouses, packaging, air conditioning, etc. 5. Economic Properties
PCMs can regulate the ambient temperature of the system within its a. Abundant
phase transition temperature (PTT). Once the temperature increases b. Available
beyond the melting point of the PCM, the phase change occurs from solid c. Cost-effective
to liquid, absorbing excess heat without changing the temperature, as
shown in Fig. 2-a [47]. Conversely, the material discharges heat energy
when the ambient temperature falls below the PCM freezing point.
Classification of PCMs
Therefore, the indoor temperature peaks and fluctuations can be
reduced and delayed by choosing a suitable PCM for which the PTT
PCMs are broadly classified as organic, inorganic, and eutectic, as
matches the required indoor temperature (Fig. 2-b).
shown in Fig. 3. The advantages, disadvantages, and probable solutions
However, to employ these materials in latent TES systems, they must
to overcome the disadvantages of PCMs are tabulated in Table 1.
exhibit desirable thermal, chemical, kinetic, physical, and economic
Organic PCMs include paraffins, vegetable oils, and fatty acids. They
properties [48,49]. These are listed as follows:
are chemically and thermally stable, recyclable, do not undergo phase
separation and supercooling, and are available in greater quantity [50].
1. Thermal Properties
However, they have shortcomings of flammability, poor thermal con­
a. Suitable phase transition temperature for a particular application
ductivity, and high volume change during melting (10–20 %) [51,52].
b. High latent heat of transition to reduce the size of the material
Paraffins exhibit a phase change in the desired working temperature
range, chemical stability, cyclic stability, high heat of enthalpy [51],

Fig. 2. (a) Thermal storage of materials with latent and sensible heat. (b) PCM regulates the indoor temperature by peak temperature reduction and delay. Copyright
@ [47].

3
S. Nishad and I. Krupa Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241

Fig. 3. Classification of PCMs.

temperatures. Fatty acids are found to be corrosive, flammable, more

Table 1
expensive than paraffin, and emit undesirable odors which limit their
Advantages, disadvantages, and probable solution to overcome the disadvan­
applications in greenhouses [55].
tages of PCMs.
Encapsulation of PCM is inevitable for solid–liquid PCMs as other­
Type Advantages Disadvantages Possible solution
wise the liquid PCM would be lost from the point of application while
Organic Chemically stable Low thermal Prepare composites melting. Microencapsulation and macroencapsulation are two types of
conductivity with conductive fillers encapsulation techniques [56]. In microencapsulation, PCM is enclosed
Non-corrosive Flammable Encapsulation
in a thin polymeric film of high molecular weight as a sphere or capsule.
Negligible Available for low- Use for low-
supercooling and moderate melting temperature The coated nodules are then incorporated into a solution that is
subcooling temperature applications compatible with the coating. This technique can be adopted only for
Low vapor High volumetric Provide room for hydrophobic PCM. A large surface-to-volume ratio and restricted phase
pressure expansion expansion
separation to microscopic distances are the major advantages of
Thermal stability Toxicity Encapsulation
Cyclic stability
microencapsulation. In macroencapsulation, PCMs are filled inside
Congruent melting certain packages of size greater than 1 cm. This technique enhances
Greater material compatibility with the surroundings and suppresses external
availability volume changes.
Recyclable
Inorganic PCMs, including salt hydrates and metals, are suitable for
Inorganic High thermal The high degree of Mixing other salts or
conductivity supercooling additives (still under high-temperature applications. Most inorganic PCMs exhibit sharper
research) phase transitions, high heat of enthalpy, energy density, non-
Non-flammable Corrosive Encapsulation flammability, high thermal conductivity, and are less expensive [49].
Available Phase separation Encapsulation
However, salt hydrates are corrosive to most metals and thus require
low–high melting
temperature
high costs for packaging and maintenance. Previous studies suggest that
Lower volumetric Incongruent melting Use of fillers to limit salt hydrates cannot be microencapsulated due to their hydrous nature
expansion the mobility of [55]. Moreover, the phase separation and supercooling of inorganic salts
different species (still affect the phase change properties for long-term applications [57].
under research)
Although containment of salt hydrates along with nucleating and gelling
Greater phase Chemical and Alternate PCM
change enthalpy thermal instability agents resolve the above limitations, these agents may affect the heat
and energy density storage properties of the PCM [55]. In conclusion, salt hydrates are not a
Less costly viable choice for direct applications in buildings and greenhouses.
recyclable
Eutectic PCMs are combinations of two or more PCMs. The resulting
Eutectic Sharp melting Lack of Further research and
temperature thermophysical data development
composites can be inorganic-inorganic, organic-organic, and organ­
Congruent melting Strong odor Encapsulation ic–inorganic [49]. The solidification of the composite occurs at a lower
Costly Alternate PCM temperature than any other combination obtained from the same ele­
ments. Although Eutectic PCMs show sharp melting temperature, high
energy density, and congruent melting, sufficient test data is not avail­
negligible subcooling, self-nucleation, greater availability, less expense,
able due to their prolonged and expensive synthesis and characteriza­
non-corrosiveness, and ease of packaging [53]. The poor thermal con­
tion techniques [58].
ductivity and flammability of paraffins can be addressed by incorpo­
To summarize, organic PCMs, particularly paraffins are safe and
rating conductive fillers and proper encapsulation, respectively [52,54].
suitable for greenhouse applications after proper encapsulation and
However, long exposure to the volatile compounds presents in paraffins
addition of conductive fillers to overcome the flammability, toxicity, and
including benzene, toluene, and naphthalene components could be
low thermal conductivity concerns. Although they are non-
hazardous to human health and the environment due to its carcinogenic,
biodegradable, the cyclic stability and recyclability allow them for
non-renewable, and non-biodegradable nature. On the contrary, vege­
long-term energy storage applications.
table oil-based waxes are free from these toxic components and are
environmentally friendly energy sources available in a broad range of

4
S. Nishad and I. Krupa
PCM applications in greenhouses
PCMs adopted in active or passive heating/cooling systems in
greenhouses can exploit local or renewable energy resources to reduce
heating or cooling loads. In active systems, thermal energy is transferred
to the greenhouse by air or water through a duct or pipe from the heating
source. PCMs installed in the active system can store the excess or
wasted thermal energy to reuse while these systems are turned off,
thereby reducing fossil fuel consumption and operation costs. In passive
systems, PCM with appropriate melting/freezing temperature and latent
heat was used to control the temperature by the absorption of thermal
energy during melting and released during freezing. The different ap­
plications of PCMs to control greenhouse microclimates are listed as
follows:
1. Active systems
a. PCM integrated with heaters and heat pump
b. PCM integrated with solar thermal collectors
2. Passive systems
a. PCM wallboards
b. PCM storage inside containers
Active systems
Active temperature control systems are an essential part of agricul­
tural greenhouses in extreme weather conditions. Although active sys­
tems are convenient and precise in controlling the greenhouse
environment, they require energy either directly or indirectly from fossil
fuels. For example, heaters burn gas or oil, and fans (for active venti­
lation or cooling) use electricity. Due to the greater fuel price, carbon
footprint, and large heating loads on the greenhouse, the demand for
alternate energy from renewable sources has increased over the past few
decades. Solar thermal collectors and ground source heat pumps use
renewable solar and Earth energy, respectively, to heat or cool green­
houses. In addition, the incorporation of TES using PCMs along with
these active systems enhanced their performance by continuous supply,
reduction in heater working hours, and better environmental conditions.
Previous literature shows that PCMs can be integrated with different
components in active greenhouse systems [6,23-25]. Different active
systems with PCM storage are discussed in the following sections.
PCM integrated with heaters and heat pump
The higher temperature exhaust gases emitted from fossil fuel
heaters cause air pollution in addition to the degradation of the system
energy efficiency. The recovery of this waste heat was found to be an
efficient technology to heat the greenhouse environment [59,60]. Yan
et al. were motivated by a case study [61], where Andrews and Pearce
examined the reuse of waste heat recovered from a glass manufacturing
unit in greenhouse heating. Yan et al. conducted an experimental study
to understand the efficiency enhancement of a fuel heater in combina­
tion with PCM storage [59]. The energy efficiency of the conventional
fuel heater is degraded specifically for two reasons. First, the heater
exhaust emits higher temperature gases to the atmosphere, which rep­
resents waste from the system. Second, the lower temperature of heater
inlet air causes energy loss in the heat exchanger.
Therefore, Yan et al. [59] built a heat recovery system (HRS) to store
the recovered waste heat from the exhaust of the gas heater. The HRS
includes a crossflow plate heat exchanger with or without PCM sheets
installed between the exhaust gas and the circulating air. This system
improved the thermal efficiency of the heater by increasing the inlet air
temperature and decreasing the exhaust gas temperature. Hydrated so­
dium acetate PCM sheets store the excess heat from the heater exhaust
and recover/discharge it while the heater is inactivated. The system
with PCM increased the greenhouse temperature by 3 ◦ C due to a 24 %
increase in the inlet air temperature of the heater. Considering
5
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241
environmental aspects, the system recovered a large amount of heat
from the exhaust, which would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere
and as a result, the exhaust temperature and the gas consumption were
reduced by 24 ◦ C and 48%, respectively. Since the payback period for
installing PCM HRS is only 4 months considering the natural gas savings
in Iran, the system support both the farmers and the environment.
In another study, Yan et al. [60] integrated PCM storage into a plate-
type heat exchanger (HRS) to store the exhaust heat from the gas heater
(Fig. 4). When the gas heater turned off, the recovered waste heat from
the HRS unit was used for 2 different scenarios (Fig. 5): as an auxiliary
heater to the greenhouse (Fig. 5-c) and as a burner air preheater (where
the inlet air temperature of the gas heater increases, Fig. 5-b). The ef­
ficiency of the two systems was evaluated in terms of the heater working
periods. The results from their study showed that the heater working
periods were reduced by 27% when the HRS was used as a burner air
preheater rather than an auxiliary heater (2.7%). The payback time for
the HRS system was 8 years and 4 months for the auxiliary heater and
burner air preheater, respectively.
Alternatively, ground source heat pumps can be used to heat or cool
greenhouses where the renewable source of Earth energy is converted to
thermal energy. Heat pumps produce more energy than they use due to
the exploitation of free energy from the ground. The year-round constant
and moderate temperature of the earth was carried to the heat
exchanger through the antifreeze liquid distributed through the under­
ground pipes. The heat was then utilized for refrigerant evaporation in
the heat pump. The condensation of the refrigerant after passing through
the compressor releases heat, which can be distributed to the green­
house environment using a fan. PCMs can be integrated with heat pumps
to absorb the excess heat created in the greenhouse while operating the
pump continuously. The performance of such a system (heat pump along
with a PCM storage unit) was evaluated by Benli and Durmus [62,63] to
heat a greenhouse of 30 m2 area. 300 kg of calcium chloride hexahydrate
(PCM) was filled inside a cylindrical plastic tank (PCM storage unit) with
perforated polyethylene (PE) pipes to exchange the heat from the heat
pump to the PCM storage unit. The heat pump was continuously oper­
ated to heat the greenhouse in cold winter and to charge the PCM unit.
When the greenhouse temperature fell below a certain value, the PCM
unit discharges the auxiliary heat by operating a centrifugal fan beside
the heat supplied by the heat pump. The results show that while the heat
pump increased the greenhouse temperature by 5–10 ◦ C, the auxiliary
heat supplied by the PCM raised the temperature by 1–3 ◦ C. Moreover,
for the overall system, the coefficient of performance (COP) was
observed to be in the range of 2.0–3.5, which is promising. “The COP is
the ratio of the power drawn from the heat pump as cooling or heat to the
power that is supplied to the compressor.”.
Table 2 summarizes the PCM applications in greenhouses integrated
with heaters or heat pumps. Although hydrated salts are not viable for
applications in buildings and greenhouses due to their corrosive nature,
storage in stainless steel containers away from the building structure
along with its greater latent heat capacity, good thermal conductivity,
and greater availability at low cost are the main reason for choosing
them in the above applications. However, the long-term impacts of
supercooling and incongruent melting were not considered in these
studies. Nevertheless, the reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels for
the active systems would benefit both environmentally and
economically.
PCM integrated with solar thermal collectors
Active solar systems equipped with solar thermal collectors and TES
provide continuous temperature control of agricultural greenhouses.
The solar radiation absorbed by the solar thermal collector is either
transferred to the greenhouse environment or stored in a TES system
that can be recovered when solar radiation is absent or inadequate (i.e.,
at night or on colder days). Two types of TES systems incorporating
PCMs were found in the literature [53,64-69]: (1) heat storage tanks and
(2) packed bed storage. In the heat storage tank, the heat transfer fluid
S. Nishad and I. Krupa Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241

Fig. 4. (a) PCM HRS and (b) schematic of plate-type heat exchanger in the PCM HRS, where a, b, c, and d are 4 m, 50 cm, 20 cm, and 2.5 cm, respectively. Copyright
@ [60].

Fig. 5. (a) PCM HRS charging mode, (b) preheating the inlet air of a gas heater,
and (c) direct discharge of the stored heat into the greenhouse space. Copyright
@ [60].
exchanges the thermal energy with the PCM filled inside a cylindrical
storage tank via perforated pipes [53,67-69]. Alternatively, encapsu­
lated PCM capsules packed as a bed absorber inside the solar thermal
collector absorbs and store solar thermal energy [64-66,70,71].
A paraffin wax-filled cylindrical tank was used to store solar heat
from 18 flat plate solar thermal collectors of 1.5 m2 absorber area, facing
south and mounted at 550 in Adana, Turkey [67]. A 180 m2 greenhouse
was heated by the PCM storage unit placed 2 m away from the green­
house through polyethylene pipes (Fig. 6). The seasonal storage unit was
charged by warm air coming from solar thermal collectors during
summer and discharged to the greenhouse during winter. Heat transfer
to and from the storage unit was accomplished with centrifugal fans
operating at a flow rate of 600 m3/h. The energy and exergy analysis
shows that the PCM system stored 1,740 W of heat and 60 W of thermal
exergy. The energy and exergy efficiencies of a similar system were
calculated by Ozturk [53]. It was reported that the energy efficiency of
the PCM storage system was 47.9%, while the exergy efficiency was only
4.2%. Exergy analysis evaluates the quality of thermal energy, while
energy analysis only considers the quantity of energy that may not be
fully converted into useful storage [72,73]. Therefore, the system was
inefficient for heat storage concerning exergy efficiency. However, the
details of recovery efficiency, temperature control achieved, and energy
savings of the greenhouses were not discussed in the above studies.
Benli and Durmus [68] used 300 kg of calcium chloride hexahydrate
as the PCM in a cylindrical tank to store the thermal energy from 10-
pieced solar air collectors situated in Elazig, Turkey (Fig. 7). Five
different shapes of absorber plates were used (i.e., flat, corrugated,
trapeze, reverse corrugated, and reverse trapeze) to examine the per­
formance of solar air collectors with a PCM storage tank located inside
the greenhouse for temperature control. Two differential thermostats
and centrifugal fans control the thermal fluid flow to and from the PCM
storage tank and to the greenhouse. The excess solar energy stored by
the PCM was sufficient to cover up to 23% of the greenhouse daily en­
ergy demand for 3–4 h. The proposed system provided an inside
greenhouse temperature 6–9 ◦ C higher than the ambient temperature.
Zhou et al. [74] numerically modeled a greenhouse of 500 m2 area
heated by the PCM storage unit that is charged from the solar energy
absorbed by the evacuated tube collector. The heat calculations adopted
in the model evaluated the solar radiation, heat gains on various sur­
faces, and indoor greenhouse temperature at different times, and good
agreement was obtained with the experimental data. However, the
model overestimated the indoor temperature at night for days with
insufficient sunlight, as the PCM storage unit was assumed to be storing
heat irrespective of the meteorological conditions.
Naghibi et al. [69] created a TRANSYS model of a PCM-filled water
tank to heat a greenhouse. The proposed system contains a flat-plate
solar thermal collector, circulating pumps, heat exchanger, and PCM
storage unit. The thermal energy transferred to the exchanger through
the working fluid heated the water and PCM inside the storage unit. The
hot water circulated through the greenhouse and controlled the indoor

Table 2
Summary of the performance of greenhouses using PCM integrated with heaters and heat pump
Greenhouse Area Plant PCM PCM Quantity Remarks Reference
Location (m2)

Elazig, Turkey 30 - CaCl2.6H2O 300 kg • The COP of the heat pump was 2.3–3.8 [62,63]
• PCM produces 1–3 ◦ C as auxiliary heat
Isfahan, Iran 1,320 Cucumber Hydrated salt of 7 boxes of • PCM increased GH temp by 3 ◦ C [59]
sodium acetate 1.5x0.5x0.005m • Exhaust gas temperature reduced by 24 ◦ C
• Gas consumption reduced by 48%
• Payback period of 4 months
Isfahan, Iran 1,000 Lisianthus Hydrated salt Filled in 4 box plates of • PCM reduced the burner working periods by 27% when used as [60]
flower ofsodium acetate 2.5x50 cm burner preheater and by 2.7% when used as an auxiliary heater
• Payback period of 4 months and 8 years

6
S. Nishad and I. Krupa
Fig. 6. Schematic of the heat storage system and greenhouse. Copyright @ [53].
Fig. 7. Views of solar greenhouse heating system integrated with the PCM storage unit studied by Benli and Durmus. Copyright @ [68].
temperature. When solar energy is unavailable, PCM releases the stored
heat and maintains a favorable indoor temperature. The model estab­
lished in their study covered 45% of the thermal energy demand for a
greenhouse with a one-acre area in Ontario, Canada using a 600 m2 flat-
plate solar thermal collector positioned at 420, working fluid of a 1:1
mixture of propylene glycol and water, and 25 m3 cylindrical storage
tank with methyl eicosanoate as the PCM. The findings reveal that the
storage efficiency was raised by up to 14% with the increased fraction of
PCM in the storage tank (up to 60 %). Considering the annual savings in
the natural gas and carbon tax, the payback period for the PCM storage
system was calculated as 7 and 14 years with 20 and 60 % of PCM in the
tank, respectively. It should be noted that the cost of PCM is the influ­
encing factor in the determination of the payback period. Moreover,
annual CO2 emission was reduced by 8.36 tons with 20 % of PCM.
In contrast to separate PCM storage units, packed beds of PCMs are
simple, compact, and efficient TES systems. The absorber plates are
replaced by encapsulated PCM spheres with black coating, as shown in
7
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241
Fig. 8. Such a system was designed by Bouadila et al. [70] and the heat
storage and recovery process were investigated. The solar air heater
latent heat storage collector (SAHLSC) consists of a steel matrix filled
with spherical encapsulated PCM capsules of 0.077 m diameter and a
polyolefin black coating. The thermal energy absorbed by the solar
thermal collector of 2 × 1 m2 size was stored during the charging period
(i.e., daytime) and provided a uniform heat of 200 W/m2 for 11 h at
night with cold air circulating through the storage device. The heat
supply was unaffected by the fluctuations in solar radiation throughout
the charging period. The study reported that the daily energy and exergy
efficiencies of the proposed technique reached up to 45% and 25%,
respectively. The higher exergy efficiency indicates the better quality of
thermal energy stored in the packed bed system compared to the heat
storage unit, where it was only 4.2% [53,67].
In another study, Bouadila et al. [64,71] incorporated SAHLSC in a
chapel-shaped small greenhouse with a 14.8 m2 floor area, as shown in
Fig. 8-c. It was found that the SAHLSC located inside the greenhouse
S. Nishad and I. Krupa
Fig. 8. (a) Schematic view of the proposed setup, (b) schematic diagram of SAHLSC, and (c) SAHLSC inside the greenhouse. Copyright @ [64,70].
stored 56% of the surplus solar heat compared to the greenhouse
without SAHLSC. The technique covered 30% of the greenhouse heating
requirement at night [71]. Moreover, the nocturnal indoor temperature
of the greenhouse exceeded the outside temperature by 5 ◦ C. The pro­
posed system reduced the relative humidity by 10–20% as compared
with that of conventional greenhouses [64]. The economic analysis of a
hybrid system (SAHLSC + conventional fuel heater) and a conventional
fuel heater system shows that the payback period for SAHLSC is about 5
years for 3 months working in a year. Moreover, the reduced carbon
emissions represent only 1% of the total Tunisian greenhouse CO2
emissions.
The influence of the nocturnal shutter on the same greenhouse was
evaluated in another study by Kooli et al. [66]. The heat loss at night was
reduced for the greenhouse with the shutter, and the inside temperature
was 2 ◦ C greater than that with no shutter. The SAHLSC was capable of
maintaining an inside temperature of 15 ◦ C at night while the ambient
temperature decreased to 8 ◦ C.
A hydroponic greenhouse microclimate equipped with a PCM-
packed bed absorber in a solar air heater was used to study nocturnal
heating [65]. Spherical capsules containing calcium chloride hexahy­
drate were placed on two superposed beds to absorb the incident solar
radiation and store the excess energy during the day (Fig. 9). At night,
the PCM discharges and the hot air transferred to the greenhouse
increased the inside temperature by 6 ◦ C. The SAHLSC with a packed
bed provided an average thermal efficiency of 0.38. Compared to the
conventional heaters, PCM packed bed solar thermal collector reduced
CO2 emission in addition to the savings of around 4600 kWh of energy
annually. The payback period calculated was 6 years for the hybrid
Fig. 9. (a) The solar air collector equipped greenhouse along with packed bed PCM and (b) schematic view of the packed bed solar thermal collector. Copyright
@ [65].
8
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241
system compared to the conventional heater.
Table 3 summarizes the previous PCM applications in greenhouses
integrated with solar thermal collectors. Paraffins and salt hydrates were
filled as PCMs in heat storage tanks whereas encapsulated PCMs were
used in the SAHLSC with packed bed absorber. Although both improved
the energy efficiency of the heating system, PCM-packed bed absorbers
[64,71]exhibited higher exergy efficiency compared to the heat storage
unit [53,67]. This could be due to the useful storage of thermal energy in
a packed bed system. In other words, the large surface area of the PCM
capsules allows for excellent heat transfer during charging/discharging.
On the other hand, the poor thermal conductivity of the PCM limits the
heat transfer in the storage tank where no conductive fillers were added
to improve the thermal conductivity.
The literature suggests that a heating system combining solar ther­
mal collectors and PCM storage cannot compensate for the entire heat­
ing demand of a greenhouse. Therefore, an additional conventional
heating system is necessary to maintain comfortable greenhouse con­
ditions. This would add to the initial cost of the hybrid system (solar
thermal collector with PCM storage + conventional fuel heater).
Although the hybrid system considerably reduces the CO2 emissions, the
payback period was higher (5–7 years) compared to the PCM incorpo­
ration in conventional fuel heaters (it was 4 months, Section 4.1.2). The
capital cost for the installation of a conventional heating system, solar
thermal collectors, and the PCM storage unit may not be affordable to
the farmers. However, considering the environmental benefits and life
cycle savings, the stakeholders and policymakers should subsidize the
expenses of installation. Alternatively, a fuel heater integrated with PCM
storage is a promising choice for TES due to its simplicity, efficiency, and
S. Nishad and I. Krupa Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241

Table 3
Summary of the performance of greenhouses using PCM integrated with solar thermal collectors
Greenhouse Area PCM PCM Quantity Plant Remarks Reference
Location (m2)

Adana, Turkey 180 Paraffins 6,000 kg - • The heat and thermal exergy stored were 1,740 and 60 W for the charging [67]
period
• Average values of net energy and exergy efficiencies were 42 and 3.3%
Adana, Turkey 180 Paraffins 6,000 kg - • The rate of heat transferred to the PCM unit ranged from 1.22-2.63 kW [53]
and the heat stored in the unit ranged from 0.65-2.1 kW
Elazig, Turkey 30 CaCl2.6H2O 300 kg - • PCM provided 18-23% of the total daily thermal energy required for 3-4 h [68]
compared to the conventional heating device
• 6–9 ◦ C difference in temperature between the inside and outside of the
greenhouse
Borj Cedria, 14.8 Capsule AC27 300 capsules Tomato • PCM increased the nocturnal greenhouse inside temperature by 5 ◦ C and [64]
Tunisia reduced relative humidity by 10-20%
Borj Cedria, 14.8 Capsule AC27 300 capsules Tomato • PCM stored 56% of the diurnal excess heat inside the greenhouse [71]
Tunisia • The stored heat represents 30% of the total nocturnal heating requirement
Borj Cedria, 14.8 Capsule AC27 300 capsules Tomato • A nocturnal shutter increased the temperature inside the greenhouse by 2 [66]
Tunisia ◦
C versus a conventional greenhouse
• The PCM integrated solar heater maintained 15 ◦ C inside the greenhouse
while the outside temperature decreased to 8 ◦ C
Borj Cedria, 24 CaCl2.6H2O 312 capsules - • The nocturnal temperature increased by 6 ◦ C [65]
Tunisia • The efficiency of the solar heater with the PCM packed bed increased by
0.29-0.38
Ontario, 1 Acre Methyl 25 m3 water tank filled Bell • A simulation study in TRANSYS [69]
Canada eicosanoate with 0-60% of PCM pepper • The PCM water tank provided 45% of the total thermal energy required
for a 1-acre greenhouse
Beijing, China 500 - - - • A numerical simulation study in MATLAB [74]
• The established model evaluated the solar radiation, surface and indoor
air temperatures in a plastic greenhouse and agree with the experimental
results

low payback period. However, further studies need to be conducted to
optimize the design for comfortable indoor conditions at reasonable
expense and safe environmental conditions.
Passive system
In passive systems, environmental control can be achieved by
incorporating PCMs in the greenhouse envelope or the floor area (soil).
This enables passive control of the inside air temperature or relative
humidity by absorbing excess heat inside the greenhouse and storing it
as latent heat energy. Thermal energy was recovered while the green­
house indoor temperature was below the PTT of the PCM by circulating
the greenhouse air using a fan or by natural convection. PCM-integrated
wallboards or PCMs stored inside the containers were studied for
greenhouse heating applications [46,75-79]. These are discussed in the
following sections.
PCM wallboards
Chinese solar greenhouses (CSGs), without any auxiliary heating
techniques, are adopted in China for agricultural farming during winter,
where the mean temperature is below − 10 ◦ C. The passive heating
system of CSG consists of a transparent south roof with a thermal blanket
on top, a non-transparent north roof, and solid north, east and west walls
(Fig. 10-a, [22]). The east–west orientation of the greenhouses located in
the Northern Hemisphere provides the highest solar radiation in winter
and the lowest solar radiation in summer. The thermal energy obtained
from the incident solar radiation on the south wall may be lost through
the north wall. Therefore, modifying the north wall to absorb or reflect
solar radiation can increase the indoor greenhouse temperature and
reduce the heating requirements of the CSG. Recently, the traditional
design was modified by the addition of TES systems such as PCMs. The
thermal behavior of a greenhouse similar to CSG located in Marrakesh
under Mediterranean climate conditions was numerically simulated by
Berroug et al. [80] with the incorporation of PCM on the north wall. The
north wall of a 24 m2 greenhouse was filled with calcium chloride
hexahydrate as the PCM (32.4 kg/m2 of the greenhouse surface area).
The results showed that a 4-cm-thick PCM north wall increased the
greenhouse internal temperature by 6–12 ◦ C at night with fewer

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram for (a) a Chinese solar greenhouse (CSG) and (b) three-layer north wall of CSG. Copyright @ [22,77].

9
S. Nishad and I. Krupa
fluctuations, which is favorable for plant growth during winter.
A three-layer north wall was constructed by Guan et al. [76,77] to
improve the thermal performance of the greenhouse by reducing heat
loss. The wall includes an internal PCM wallboard, middle block bricks,
and an external insulation layer (see Fig. 10-b). Shape-stabilized PCMs
made of high-density polyethylene and paraffin wax were mixed with
cement in a 6:4 ratio to obtain PCM wallboards. This enables absorption
of the surplus heat inside the greenhouse and the solar radiation incident
on the southern side of the north wall. The middle block layer provides
good heat storage capacity, while the insulation layer prevents heat loss
from the north wall. A comparative study was conducted in a 300 m2
greenhouse where half of the north wall was integrated with PCM
wallboards and polystyrene insulation, while the other half was kept as a
reference. The thermal interaction between the reference and PCM in­
tegrated greenhouses was suppressed by a thermally insulated poly­
styrene partition wall between them. The east and west walls were built
with bricks, and the front roof was built with ethylene–vinyl acetate
(EVA) copolymer film. The results from the study indicate that PCM
wallboards increased the heat storage capacity by 14% and reduced the
heat loss by 5.6%. Passive heating by the three-layer north wall provided
up to 21.4% more heating capacity and 71.4% more crop yield
compared to the reference greenhouse [81]. Several performance in­
dicators were assessed by Ling et al. [46] to compare the performance of
PCM wallboard in a similar setup studied by Guan et al. [81] under
different weather conditions. The measured values of operative tem­
perature, north wall surface temperature, average PCM temperature,
heat storage, and release indicated that the PCM wallboard improves the
performance of the greenhouse irrespective of the outside weather
conditions. However, greater solar radiation obtained on sunny days
effectively assisted in greenhouse heating compared to cloudy days for
both greenhouses with and without PCM.
In another study, Guan et al. [77] constructed a model of a similar
system in Energy Plus with a three-layer north wall to find out the op­
timum thickness of each layer for a CSG (i.e., polystyrene insulation,
brick block, and PCM wallboard). The results obtained were 60 mm
insulation, 620 mm brick block, and 50 mm PCM board according to the
climatic conditions in Beijing, China. The heating capacity of the wall
increases with the thickness of the PCM wallboard up to a certain value
Fig. 11. The active–passive triple PCM north wall (a) sectional drawing; (b) structure of cavity wall. Copyright @ [76].
10
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241
and stabilizes beyond that thickness for given climatic conditions.
Similarly, the temperature distribution of the brick wall exhibited a
constant temperature zone, beyond which the wall temperature is not
influenced by the outdoor temperature due to the inferior thermal
conductivity of the construction material. The depth of the constant
temperature zone varies with the specific heat capacity of the wall
material. For instance, this depth was 600 mm for a 3-layer north wall
[77], while it was 300 mm for a concrete wall, 600 mm and 200 mm
thick for a composite wall with concrete and slag wool [82]. Increasing
the wall thickness beyond this depth may result in the formation of a
thermally stable layer and a negligible increase in the heat storage ca­
pacity. However, reducing the wall thickness causes poor thermal sta­
bility by increasing the heat loss through the wall. Therefore, the wall
thickness needs to be optimized to ensure adequate thermal stability and
heat storage capacity.
A cavity provided in the middle layer of the block wall with natural
ventilation was constructed by Rodrigues and Aelenei [83] to enhance
the wall heat storage capacity. This technique was adopted by Ling et al.
[76] on the north wall of CSG, where the ventilated air cavity receives
thermal energy from solar thermal collectors and actively improves the
heat storage. In addition, PCM wallboards passively absorb the solar
energy reaching the southern face of the north wall. This active–passive
north wall increases the heat storage capacity in a tripartite manner
(Fig. 11): (1) increasing the heat flow to the wall interior through the
cavity wall connected to the solar thermal collectors, (2) enhancing the
north wall heat absorbance on the south face by PCM wallboards, and
(3) promoting the thermal resistance of the exterior wall by insulation
boards. The proposed system improved the efficiency of absorption,
storage, and release of solar energy of the north wall. The maximum
efficiency was obtained when the air tunnels were spaced 0.4 m apart
and heated air at 60 ◦ C was flowing at a velocity of 0.26 m/s in the
downward direction. Although the simulation results show that the heat
storage increases with increasing velocity of the supply air, the heat
exchange effectiveness was found to decrease with velocities beyond
0.26 m/s. However, these design parameters vary according to the
material type, greenhouse structure, and outdoor climatic conditions.
Therefore, numerical methods were adopted to optimize the design
parameters owing to the practical difficulties in conducting
S. Nishad and I. Krupa
experimental studies [84]. A finite element model of a triple ventilated
north wall in a greenhouse was created by Han et al. [84] to obtain the
design parameters and operating conditions. The method was validated
against measured data from a ventilated wall constructed in the labo­
ratory. Furthermore, the design parameters were optimized after con­
ducting a parametric study. Additionally, an experimental greenhouse of
400 m2 was equipped with the designed wall to study the practical ef­
fects, and the performance was compared with a reference greenhouse.
The optimized wall with air cavities placed at 500 mm, PCM thickness of
40 mm, and 140 mm of insulation stored 5.36 MJ/m2 of solar energy on
sunny days in Beijing. The optimum air temperature and velocity
through the ventilated wall should be 60 ◦ C and 0.45 m/s, respectively.
The optimized north wall of the experimental greenhouse increased the
surface temperature of the interior wall by 2.2–3.4 ◦ C and indoor tem­
perature by 0.8–1.4 ◦ C in winter.
In another study, a greenhouse north wall with air cavities positioned
next to the PCM wallboards was constructed, as shown in Fig. 12 [75].
This ventilated cavity assists the PCM wallboards in obtaining heat from
the solar thermal collector placed on top of the greenhouse and enhances
the heat storage capacity even with poo thermal conductivity. More­
over, it prevents the formation of the thermally stable layer at the middle
of the block wall, as explained before. The experimental results from a
400 m2 greenhouse show that the proposed north wall increased the
indoor temperature up to 4.16 ◦ C, while the heat storage and release
capacities were enhanced by 48% and 60%, respectively [75]. From the
above findings, it can be inferred that the energy storage efficiency of
the greenhouse north wall can be enhanced by the ventilated cavities
positioned near the PCM wallboard rather than at the middle of the
block wall, as the energy density of the PCM is higher than that of the
block wall.
Guan et al. embedded PCM-filled tanks in the north wall and con­
nected them to concentrated solar air collectors [85]. While previous
studies focused on heat storage enhancement, Guan et al. paid more
attention to the heat released to the greenhouse at night. They provided
ventilated tubes linking PCM tanks and greenhouses to release the stored
thermal energy. The results from the numerical simulations show that
ventilation prevents thermally stable layer formation at the middle of
the wall and increases the heat release capacity. However, a higher
velocity is only suitable for rapid heating in a short duration due to the
Fig. 12. Schematic of a ventilation wall with active–passive heat storage constructed by Chen et al. Copyright @ [75].
11
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241
faster reduction in the PCM heat capacity.
The effect of PCM thickness on indoor and plant temperature was
studied numerically by Kumari et al. [86]. The PCM employed on the
north wall along with the insulation improves the nighttime plant and
indoor temperature. Moreover, the results show that the fluctuations in
greenhouse temperature were minimal when using a PCM layer at the
interior of the greenhouse north wall with 30% of the wall thickness.
Choosing PCMs with appropriate thermophysical properties is
important to achieve a comfortable indoor thermal environment and
efficient energy conservation. A parametric study performed by Liu et al.
[87] evaluated the influences of the heat of enthalpy, phase transition
temperature, and mix ratio of paraffin PCM with other construction
materials (such as gypsum) on the energy consumption of greenhouses
in winter. The average maximum temperature and design indoor tem­
perature were found to be the ideal PTT of the PCM. The storage ca­
pacity of the PCM wallboard decreases with the decrease in the PCM mix
ratio in the wallboard. Therefore, the simulation study shows a PTT of
26 ◦ C, a heat of enthalpy of 60 kJ/kg, and a mix ratio of 40%, providing
energy savings of 20% in a greenhouse in Beijing, China during winter.
However, a similar study conducted in Xian, China, shows a PTT of 11 ◦ C
and thermal conductivity of 0.4 W/m.C, and heat of enthalpy of 140 kJ/
kg is required to increase the minimum temperature inside the green­
house by 33% [88]. Numerical studies help to assess the range of ther­
mophysical properties of PCMs under variable architectural conditions
of a greenhouse in different climates to attain the predicted energy
conservation.
Table 4 summarizes the applications of PCMs on greenhouse north
walls as passive thermal energy storage systems. Considering the cor­
rosive nature of the salt hydrates, paraffins were used to prepare PCM
wallboards in all the experimental studies. However, greater latent heat
values of the salt hydrates were used in the numerical studies. Consid­
ering 30 years of the life span of paraffins owing to their cyclic stability,
passive systems require only installation cost with zero maintenance and
operational cost. Since the wallboards are prepared as a shape-stabilized
composite of paraffin, polyethylene, and cement, environmental con­
cerns regarding toxicity, flammability, and non-biodegradability of
PCMs can be ignored due to insignificant leakage of PCM. Therefore,
PCM wallboards are the best option for passive greenhouse heating and
are used in Chinese greenhouses.
S. Nishad and I. Krupa Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241

Table 4
Summary of the performance of greenhouses using PCM wallboards
Greenhouse Area (m2) PCM PCM installation Remarks Reference
Location

Beijing, China 313 Paraffin wax PCM wallboards on the north wall along with • Temperature, heat storage, and release increased with [46]
brickwork and insulation PCM
• Sunny weather enables more efficient PCM
performance
Beijing, China 313 Paraffin wax PCM wallboards on the north wall along with • Heat storage capacity increased by 12–14% [81]
brickwork and insulation • Crop yield increased by 71%
Marrakesh, 24 calcium chloride North wall filled with 777.6 kg PCM (32.4 kg of • Simulation study [80]
Morocco hexahydrate PCM/m2 of GH area) • Indoor temperature at night increased by 6-12 ◦ C
Urumchi, 400 Paraffin wax PCM wallboards on the north wall along with • Heat storage enhanced by 35-47% [75]
China solid and hollow brickwork (active ventilation) • Heat release enhanced by 50-60%
and insulation • Indoor temperature increased by 1.5–4 ◦ C
Beijing, China No GH, only Paraffin wax PCM wallboards on the north wall along with Maximum heat storage efficiency is obtained when [76]
north wall solid and hollow brickwork (air tunnel, active • 0.4 m gap for air tunnel
ventilation) and insulation • Air velocity 0.26 m/s
• Air temperature 60 ◦ C
Beijing, China 313 Paraffin wax PCM wallboards on the north wall along with • The optimum thickness of PCM, brick, and insulation [77]
brickwork and insulation in Beijing are 50 mm, 620 mm, and 60 mm,
respectively
Beijing, China 258 Paraffin wax PCM wallboards were installed on the interior of • Optimum phase change temperature 26 ◦ C, Heat of [87]
the north wall fusion 60 kJ/kg and 40% PCM for 20% energy savings
in Beijing, China
New Delhi, - calcium chloride - • Higher room temperature at night [86]
India hexahydrate • Low fluctuations in heat transfer with greater PCM
thickness
Xian, China 1,116 - PCM integrated north wall • Optimum phase change temperature 11 ◦ C, the heat of [88]
fusion 140 kJ/kg and thermal conductivity 0.4 W/ (m.
C) for Xian, China
Beijing, China 400 Paraffin wax PCM wallboards on the north wall along with • Wall surface temperature increased by 2.2–3.4 ◦ C [84]
solid and hollow brickwork (active ventilation) • Indoor air temperature increased by 0.8–1.4 ◦ C
and insulation
Lanzhou, 48 Paraffin wax PCM tanks were placed between the brickwork of • Numerical study [85]
China the north wall and connected to the solar thermal • No thermal-stable layer
collector via tubes • Heat release capacity increased with ventilation
velocity and decreased with temperature decline

PCM storage inside containers
The application of PCM wallboards on greenhouse envelopes is
feasible in cold climate regions where the north wall heats the green­
house. However, in continental temperate zones where the summer is
hot and winter is cold, plastic greenhouses were adopted without any
solid north wall, as present in a solar greenhouse (Fig. 13). In such cases,
the simplest passive TES technique utilizing PCM can be executed by
placing PCM-filled containers inside the greenhouse. Several studies
were performed to evaluate the capability of PCM containers to regulate
the indoor and substrate (i.e., root zone) temperature in the greenhouse.
Beyhan et al. [79] studied the effects of two types of PCMs (i.e., oleic
acid, OA, and capric acid, CA) in a 500 m2 soilless crop production
greenhouse located in Turkey to control the substrate temperature.
PCMs with a PTT of 12 ◦ C were packed in plastic boxes and placed on
both sides of the containers in which the crops were grown in the sub­
strate containing a mixture of coco peat and perlite (Fig. 14). The test
results show that a mixture of OA and CA increased the temperature
inside the container by a maximum of 2.4 ◦ C. However, most of the
stored thermal energy was lost to the surrounding air by convection
during the night, which reduced the efficiency of the system.
The economic and environmental benefits of PCM applications were
examined in a greenhouse located in southern Spain with the intention
to replace the standard fossil fuel or biomass root zone heating tech­
niques [89]. The study adopted life cycle analysis (LCA) to assess the
feasibility of using PCMs and reported that the technology reduced the
environmental impacts of crop production and increased economic
benefits compared to conventional heating systems. However, the re­
sults were generated from detailed calculations and not from actual
experimental data. Therefore, the authors conducted a field study in a
230 m2 greenhouse located in northern Barcelona to evaluate the
effectiveness of PCM in a perlite bag and its effective position to mini­
mize the fluctuations in root zone temperature during winter [78]. Ex­
periments were conducted for four different positions of the PCM on the
perlite bag, as shown in Fig. 15. The study concluded that under Med­
iterranean climatic conditions, passive PCM heating systems seem to be
effective at a melting temperature of 15 ◦ C. Wrapping the perlite bag

Fig. 13. (a) Solar greenhouse and (b) plastic greenhouse. Copyright @ [45].

12
S. Nishad and I. Krupa Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241

Fig. 14. Schematic diagram of the soilless crop growing containers with PCM containers: (a) lateral section; (b) top view. Copyright @ [79].

with PCM-encapsulated sheets (Fig. 15-d) increased the thermal effi­
ciency by insulating the bag from the air temperature. The environ­
mental and economic assessment of the system based on single night
data shows that the technique is not economically feasible. However,
further research needs to be conducted for an entire winter to evaluate
the payback period and other economic assessments.
In addition to greenhouse heating applications, the performance of
PCM was evaluated with respect to cooling during hot day climates
[90,91]. In a 1 m2 CSG located in Beijing (China), PCMs (with a PTT of
18 ◦ C) were filled inside 10 cylindrical stainless-steel bottles of 550 ml
capacity and placed inside CSG [91]. The proposed system decreased the
maximum daytime indoor temperature of the greenhouse by 1–2 ◦ C and
increased the minimum nocturnal temperature by 1–3 ◦ C, thereby
reducing the temperature fluctuations. In another study, 3.3 kg of PCM
(PTT of 26–29 ◦ C) per square meter of greenhouse floor area provided
5 ◦ C higher nocturnal indoor temperature during cold days and 7 ◦ C
lower diurnal temperature during hot days [90]. The experiment used a
tunnel greenhouse with a 3 m2 area equipped with a polypropylene heat
exchanger filled with 10 kg of CaCl2⋅6H2O, as shown in Fig. 16.
A eutectic PCM (70% paraffins, 22% fatty acid, and 8% tetradecanol)
was adopted with a PTT between 10 and 35 ◦ C to maintain the optimum
greenhouse temperature in a 3 m2 greenhouse [45]. The study proposed
an effective technique to place the PCM in a greenhouse where the PCMs
were wrapped in black aluminum foil bags and stored in an insulated

Fig. 15. Schematic diagrams of the positions of the PCM on the perlite bag used by Llorach-Massana et al. Copyright @ [78]: PCM (a) inside PVC tubes under perlite
bags, (b) 0.33 L polyethylene bottles under perlite bags, (c) macroencapsulated in low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags wrapping the bottom of perlite bags, and (d)
macroencapsulated in LDPE bags wrapping the whole perlite bag.

13
S. Nishad and I. Krupa
Fig. 16. PCM filled polypropylene heat exchanger. Copyright @ [90].
collection device outside the greenhouse during the daytime (Fig. 17).
After sunset, the wrapped PCMs were shifted to the greenhouse so that
the indoor greenhouse temperature was maintained at no less than
10 ◦ C. In addition, a numerical model evaluated the combinations of
PCM mass and insulation board thickness required to maintain the
feasible temperatures inside a 320 m2 greenhouse with the least in­
vestment. Although this technique seems to be simple and adequate to
control the greenhouse nocturnal temperature, it requires additional
manpower to change the position of PCM bags for large greenhouses. It
should be noted that the required greenhouse environment was main­
tained using 24 kg of PCM for a 3 m2 area of the greenhouse.
A mathematical model was developed by Najjar and Hasan [92] to
represent PCM storage inside the greenhouse. The numerical solution to
the problem predicted the maximum indoor temperature differences in a
1,200 m2 greenhouse with calcium chloride hexahydrate as the PCM.
The results show that the temperature difference was decreased by
3–5 ◦ C with PCM storage and was further decreased by forced ventila­
tion, which enhanced convective heat transfer.
Table 5 summarizes the applications of PCM containers inside the
greenhouse as passive thermal energy storage systems. From the table, it
should be noted that all types of PCMs were used in this application (i.e.,
organic, inorganic, and eutectic). Even for a small greenhouse large
quantity of PCM is required for this type of application that is not
affordable considering the cost of PCM. However, PCM-covered con­
tainers in soilless farming (see Fig. 14) require the least quantity of PCM
for better root-zone heating of the crops [79].
Future outlook
The above studies explain the potential benefits of the TES system in
greenhouses using PCMs including greenhouse thermal management,
Fig. 17. (a) PCMs wrapped inside foil bags made of black aluminum and (b) insulated collection device to store the wrapped PCM bags during daytime for thermal
energy storage. Copyright @ [45].
14
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241
energy savings, reducing dependency on fossil fuels and CO2 emissions,
etc. However, a few things pull back the large-scale application of these
systems in greenhouses including high initial investment cost and lack of
knowledge due to the unavailability of design codes and practices.
Therefore, further research should focus on TES systems at affordable
prices. In addition, the development of design standards would help to
optimize the design of PCM systems based on the required indoor
microclimate, greenhouse size, type of crop, and outdoor conditions.
Each TES system has its own advantages and limitations. The followings
aspects should be considered in future studies:
• PCM incorporated fuel heater in greenhouses would benefit in three
ways: (1) increases the thermal efficiency of the heater by using the
exhaust heat as heater inlet air preheater, (2) economical in design as
PCM modified conventional heater adds only the cost of PCM that
considerably reduces the payback period, and (3) reduces the CO2
emissions by reducing the use of fossil fuels. However, further studies
on PCM selection, quantity determination (PCM/square meter area
of greenhouse) depending on the meteorological conditions, and
required indoor climate are necessary to build the standards. It
should be noted that this TES system only reduces the use of fossil
fuels, not a substitute for renewable energy sources.
• Self-sustained solar thermal collectors should be designed for
greenhouses along with the TES systems to make fossil-fuel-free
cultivation. Although the investment cost for such a system will be
high, the extracted energy will be free of cost. Moreover, subsidizing
the initial cost by the policymakers and stakeholders and encour­
aging further research on cost-effective strategies to increase the
dependency on renewable sources of energy would breakthrough
into sustainable cultivation.
S. Nishad and I. Krupa Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241

Table 5
Summary of the performance of greenhouses using PCM storage containers
Greenhouse Area PCM PCM Remarks Reference
Location (m2) Quantity

Adana, Turkey 500 Oleic Acid (OA) and Capric Acid 2.6/4.4 kg • 2.4 ◦ C higher temperature [79]
(CA)
Tunis, Tunisia 3 CaCl2.6H2O 10 kg • 5 ◦ C higher at night during winter [90]
• 7 ◦ C lower during hot day
Beijing, China 1 Butyl stearate 5.5 liters • 1–3 ◦ C higher at night [91]
• 1–2 ◦ C lower during day
Southern Spain 19,400 Rubitherm RT18HC - • Lower environmental impact and higher economic impact for PCM [89]
compared to conventional heating based on LCA
Cabrils, Barcelona 230 Rubitherm RT18HC, RT15HC, Varying • Optimum melting temperature 15 ◦ C [78]
RT12HC • Higher efficiency if microencapsulated PCM wrapped entire perlite bag
Hangzhou, Southern 3 70% paraffins, 22% fatty acid, and 24/30 kg • PCM stored in black aluminum bags in a heat collection device [45]
China 8% tetradecanoyl maintained indoor temperature no less than 10 ◦ C
Al-Aroub, Palestine 1,200 CaCl2.6H2O - • Mathematical model solved using Java code [92]
• PCM storage decreased the maximum temperature difference inside the
greenhouse by 3–5 ◦ C

• Passive thermal management of greenhouses is promising as it is free
from the operational cost except for the electricity to operate the fans
for convective heat transfer. However, further studies on cost-
effective and self-sufficient thermal management systems are
necessary to make awareness among farmers. Moreover, the
commercialization of PCM products with high latent heat capacity
and low cost would be a simple but efficient strategy to promote
passive heating/cooling in greenhouses.
• Although a few commercial PCM wallboards are available in the
market, they are either expensive or lack sufficient latent heat ca­
pacity. Shape-stabilized PCM composites made from recycled poly­
meric waste [93,94] would promote the recycling of the plastic waste
in addition to the reduction of the cost of PCM wallboards. However,
further studies need to be conducted to limit the PCM leakage from
polymer-based composites.
• The development of numerical models for the optimization of the
TES systems in greenhouses would assist in the faster selection of
efficient technology.
Conclusions
In this paper, the latest developments in thermal energy storage
techniques using PCMs in greenhouses are presented. Effective thermal
environment control of agricultural greenhouses is important for plant
growth and yield enhancement. The adaptation of conventional tech­
nologies for greenhouse heating, cooling, or air conditioning increases
operational costs in addition to environmental concerns. Recently,
renewable energy sources, including biomass, geothermal heat, and
solar energy, have been integrated into greenhouse technologies as a
better alternative for sustainable farming. In addition, incorporating
thermal energy storage systems into renewable sources considerably
improved the energy efficiency, economy, and environment. PCMs are
highly efficient materials to store thermal energy as latent heat owing to
their high storage density. Therefore, in this review, different applica­
tions of PCMs are studied for the thermal control of greenhouses. The
following findings from this study can be summarized as follows:
● Solar radiation is the basic source of thermal energy for greenhouses.
The uneven span shape and east–west orientation of the greenhouse
provide the highest solar radiation in winter and the lowest solar
radiation in summer. However, substantial heat loss through the
greenhouse envelope due to poor insulation may cause large tem­
perature fluctuations.
● Temperature fluctuations in greenhouses can be improved by PCMs
integrated into different systems, such as active and passive systems.
PCMs utilize excess or wasted thermal energy from active tempera­
ture control systems, including fuel heaters, heat pumps, and solar
thermal collectors, to heat the greenhouse at night or on cold days. In
passive systems, the PCMs stored inside the greenhouse either on the
envelope as wallboards or in containers absorb solar heat during
melting and release heat at night during freezing.
● Utilization of exhaust heat from the fuel heater in preheating the
burner air by PCM storage saves sufficient energy by reducing the
heater working periods by 27%. This technique was found to be
economical as the payback period was 4 months.
● The excess heat from the ground source heat pump stored in PCM
storage tanks is promising to supply auxiliary heat to increase the
greenhouse temperature by 1–3 ◦ C on cold nights.
● Solar thermal collectors integrated with PCM-packed beds or storage
units can store excess solar thermal energy and provide sufficient
heat to increase the indoor temperature by 5–9 ◦ C compared to the
ambient temperature and to cover up to 30% of the greenhouse
heating demand. However, the payback period was found to be 5–7
years as it requires a backup system to support the remaining 70 % of
the heating demand.
● The exergy efficiency of the TES systems determines the quality of
energy that is available for storage. High exergy efficiencies were
obtained for encapsulated PCM-packed beds embedded in the solar
thermal collector (i.e., 25%) due to the excellent heat transfer
through the large surface area compared to the PCM storage unit
located away from the collectors (i.e., 4.2%) where the heat transfer
is limited by the poor thermal conductivity of the PCM.
● The solid north wall integrated with PCM wallboard and insulation is
ideal for passive heating of greenhouses in cold climate areas. Owing
to the inferior thermal conductivity of the PCM wallboard, ventilated
air cavities are provided inside the solid wall to assist in heat transfer.
The cavities receive hot air from the solar concentrators. The storage
efficiency of the active–passive wall can be enhanced by choosing an
appropriate design and operational conditions, such as PCM wall­
board thickness, PCM thermophysical properties, air channel size
and spacing, hot air temperature, and velocity.
● The chemical and cyclic stability, compatibility, and non-
corrosiveness with most construction materials make paraffins a
viable choice for PCM wallboards in greenhouses. Whereas salt hy­
drates are suitable in large storage tanks due to their high thermal
conductivity and low cost. Eutectic PCMs are still at the development
stage and are expensive to use in bulk applications.
● The PCM containers stored inside the greenhouses are able to control
the substrate and indoor temperatures. While the PCM containers
increased the greenhouse temperature up to 3 ◦ C, a PCM-filled heat
exchanger raised the temperature by 5 ◦ C due to forced convective
heat transfer. In addition, during hot days, PCM containers can
reduce the diurnal indoor temperature by up to 7 ◦ C.

15
S. Nishad and I. Krupa
● The proper selection of the PCM and its melting temperature,
quantity, encapsulation, and type of integration is important to
achieve the required greenhouse environmental control and energy
savings depending on the climatic conditions. Parametric analysis
using numerical simulations helps in the design process if validated
against real experimental data.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Safna Nishad: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Writing – original draft. Igor Krupa: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Project adminis­
tration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This publication was made possible by an Award NPRP13S-0127-
200177 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of The
Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely the re­
sponsibility of the authors.
References
[1] Gorjian S, Calise F, Kant K, Ahamed MS, Copertaro B, Najafi G, et al. A review on
opportunities for implementation of solar energy technologies in agricultural
greenhouses. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021;285:124807. doi: 10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2020.124807.
[2] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermal energy storage systems and applications. John Wiley
& Sons; 2021.
[3] Zhao B-C, Cheng M-S, Liu C, Dai Z-M. Cyclic thermal characterization of a molten-
salt packed-bed thermal energy storage for concentrating solar power. Appl Energy
2017;195:761–73.
[4] Yang Z, Garimella Sv. Cyclic operation of molten-salt thermal energy storage in
thermoclines for solar power plants. Appl Energy 2013;103:256–65. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2012.09.043.
[5] Sarbu I, Sebarchievici C. General review of ground-source heat pump systems for
heating and cooling of buildings. Energy Build 2014;70:441–54. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2013.11.068.
[6] Cuce E, Harjunowibowo D, Cuce PM. Renewable and sustainable energy saving
strategies for greenhouse systems: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2016;64:34–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.05.077.
[7] Nazir H, Batool M, Bolivar Osorio FJ, Isaza-Ruiz M, Xu X, Vignarooban K, et al.
Recent developments in phase change materials for energy storage applications: a
review. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2019;129:491–523.
[8] Bouhdjar A, Belhamel M, Belkhiri FE, Boulbina A. Performance of sensible heat
storage in a rockbed used in a tunnel greenhouse. Renewable Energy 1996;9:
724–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-1481(96)88386-8.
[9] Gupta A, Tiwari GN. Computer model and its validation for prediction of storage
effect of water mass in a greenhouse: a transient analysis. Energy Convers Manage
2002;43:2625–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(01)00196-0.
[10] Adaro JA, Galimberti PD, Lema AI, Fasulo A, Barral JR. Geothermal contribution to
greenhouse heating. Appl Energy 1999;64:241–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-
2619(99)00049-5.
[11] Vadiee A, Martin V. Thermal energy storage strategies for effective closed
greenhouse design. Appl Energy 2013;109:337–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2012.12.065.
[12] Huang BK, Toksoy M, Cengel YA. Transient response of latent heat storage in
greenhouse solar system. Sol Energy 1986;37:279–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0038-092X(86)90045-9.
[13] Paksoy H, Beyhan B. Thermal energy storage (TES) systems for greenhouse
technology. Advances in Thermal Energy Storage Systems: Methods and
Applications 2015:533–48. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781782420965.4.533.
[14] Bazgaou A, Fatnassi H, Bouhroud R, Gourdo L, Ezzaeri K, Tiskatine R, et al. An
experimental study on the effect of a rock-bed heating system on the microclimate
and the crop development under canarian greenhouse. Sol Energy 2018;176:
42–50.
[15] Barnes FS, Levine JG. Large energy storage systems handbook. CRC Press; 2011.
[16] Giro-Paloma J, Martínez M, Cabeza LF, Fernández AI. Types, methods, techniques,
and applications for microencapsulated phase change materials (MPCM): A review.
16
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1059–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSER.2015.09.040.
[17] Pielichowska K, Pielichowski K. Phase change materials for thermal energy
storage. Prog Mater Sci 2014;65:67–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
PMATSCI.2014.03.005.
[18] Rathod MK, Banerjee J. Thermal stability of phase change materials used in latent
heat energy storage systems: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:
246–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2012.10.022.
[19] Yang K, Zhu N, Chang C, Wang D, Yang S, Ma S. A methodological concept for
phase change material selection based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM):
A case study. Energy 2018;165:1085–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENERGY.2018.10.022.
[20] Jurinak JJ, Abdel-Khalik SI. Properties optimization for phase-change energy
storage in air-based solar heating systems. Sol Energy 1978;21:377–83. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(78)90169-X.
[21] Kürklü A. Energy storage applications in greenhouses by means of phase change
materials (PCMs): a review. Renewable Energy 1998;13:89–103. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0960-1481(97)83337-X.
[22] Cao K, Xu H, Zhang R, Xu D, Yan L, Sun Y, et al. Renewable and sustainable
strategies for improving the thermal environment of Chinese solar greenhouses.
Energy and Buildings 2019; 202:109414. doi: 10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2019.109414.
[23] Choab N, Allouhi A, el Maakoul A, Kousksou T, Saadeddine S, Jamil A. Review on
greenhouse microclimate and application: Design parameters, thermal modeling
and simulation, climate controlling technologies. Sol Energy 2019;191:109–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2019.08.042.
[24] Shukla A, Sharma A, Kant K. Solar greenhouse with thermal energy storage: a
review. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports 2016;3(3-4):58–66.
[25] Sethi VP, Sharma SK. Survey and evaluation of heating technologies for worldwide
agricultural greenhouse applications 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2008.02.010.
[26] Gorjian S, Ebadi H, Najafi G, Singh Chandel S, Yildizhan H. Recent advances in net-
zero energy greenhouses and adapted thermal energy storage systems. Sustainable
Energy Technologies and Assessments 2021; 43:100940. doi: 10.1016/J.
SETA.2020.100940.
[27] Max JFJ, Horst WJ, Mutwiwa UN, Tantau H-J. Effects of greenhouse cooling
method on growth, fruit yield and quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in a
tropical climate. Sci Hortic 2009;122(2):179–86.
[28] Sethi VP. On the selection of shape and orientation of a greenhouse: Thermal
modeling and experimental validation. Sol Energy 2009;83:21–38. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2008.05.018.
[29] Mobtaker HG, Ajabshirchi Y, Ranjbar SF, Matloobi M. Simulation of thermal
performance of solar greenhouse in north-west of Iran: an experimental validation.
Renewable Energy 2019;135:88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RENENE.2018.10.003.
[30] Ghasemi Mobtaker H, Ajabshirchi Y, Ranjbar SF, Matloobi M. Solar energy
conservation in greenhouse: Thermal analysis and experimental validation.
Renewable Energy 2016;96:509–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RENENE.2016.04.079.
[31] Chen C, Li Y, Li Na, Wei S, Yang F, Ling H, et al. A computational model to
determine the optimal orientation for solar greenhouses located at different
latitudes in China. Sol Energy 2018;165:19–26.
[32] Panwar NL, Kaushik SC, Kothari S. Solar greenhouse an option for renewable and
sustainable farming. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:3934–45. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RSER.2011.07.030.
[33] Stanciu C, Stanciu D, Dobrovicescu A. Effect of greenhouse orientation with respect
to E-W axis on its required heating and cooling loads. Energy Procedia 2016;85:
498–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2015.12.234.
[34] Chauhan PS, Kumar A. Performance analysis of greenhouse dryer by using
insulated north-wall under natural convection mode. Energy Rep 2016;2:107–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2016.05.004.
[35] Chauhan PS, Kumar A. Heat transfer analysis of north wall insulated greenhouse
dryer under natural convection mode. Energy 2017;118:1264–74. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2016.11.006.
[36] Ghani S, Bakochristou F, ElBialy EMAA, Gamaledin SMA, Rashwan MM,
Abdelhalim AM, et al. Design challenges of agricultural greenhouses in hot and arid
environments – a review. Eng Agric Environ Food 2019;12(1):48–70.
[37] Gruda N, Bisbis M, Tanny J. Impacts of protected vegetable cultivation on climate
change and adaptation strategies for cleaner production – a review. J Cleaner Prod
2019;225:324–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.03.295.
[38] Li G, Tang L, Zhang X, Dong J, Xiao M. Factors affecting greenhouse microclimate
and its regulating techniques: a review. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 2018;167:012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/
167/1/012019.
[39] Bibbiani C, Fantozzi F, Gargari C, Campiotti CA, Schettini E, Vox G. Wood biomass
as sustainable energy for greenhouses heating in Italy. Agric Agric Sci Procedia
2016;8:637–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AASPRO.2016.02.086.
[40] Velraj R. Sensible heat storage for solar heating and cooling systems. Advances in
Solar Heating and Cooling 2016:399–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-
100301-5.00015-1.
[41] Almendros-Ibáñez JA, Fernández-Torrijos M, Díaz-Heras M, Belmonte JF,
Sobrino C. A review of solar thermal energy storage in beds of particles: Packed
and fluidized beds. Sol Energy 2019;192:193–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SOLENER.2018.05.047.
[42] Gautam A, Saini RP. A review on technical, applications and economic aspect of
packed bed solar thermal energy storage system. J Storage Mater 2020;27:101046.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EST.2019.101046.
S. Nishad and I. Krupa
[43] Jouhara H, Żabnieńska-Góra A, Khordehgah N, Ahmad D, Lipinski T. Latent
thermal energy storage technologies and applications: a review. Int J Thermofluids
2020;5–6:100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJFT.2020.100039.
[44] Diaz PM. Analysis and comparison of different types of thermal energy storage
systems: a review genomics of neem trees view project analysis and comparison of
different types of thermal energy storage systems: a review. J Adv Mech Eng Sci
2016;2(1):33–46.
[45] Chen S, Zhu Y, Chen Y, Liu W. Usage strategy of phase change materials in plastic
greenhouses, in hot summer and cold winter climate. Appl Energy 2020;277:
115416. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2020.115416.
[46] Ling H, Chen C, Wei S, Guan Y, Ma C, Xie G, et al. Effect of phase change materials
on indoor thermal environment under different weather conditions and over a long
time. Appl Energy 2015;140:329–37.
[47] Al-Absi ZA, Isa MHM, Ismail M. Phase Change Materials (PCMs) and Their
Optimum Position in Building Walls. Sustainability 2020, Vol 12, Page 1294 2020;
12:1294. doi: 10.3390/SU12041294.
[48] Abhat A. Low temperature latent heat thermal energy storage: Heat storage
materials. Sol Energy 1983;30:313–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(83)
90186-X.
[49] Sharma A, Tyagi VV, Chen CR, Buddhi D. Review on thermal energy storage with
phase change materials and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(2):
318–45.
[50] Du K, Calautit J, Wang Z, Wu Y, Liu H. A review of the applications of phase change
materials in cooling, heating and power generation in different temperature
ranges. Appl Energy 2018;220:242–73.
[51] Vakhshouri AR. Paraffin as Phase Change Material. Paraffin - an Overview 2019.
doi: 10.5772/INTECHOPEN.90487.
[52] Wu S, Yan T, Kuai Z, Pan W. Thermal conductivity enhancement on phase change
materials for thermal energy storage: a review. Energy Storage Mater 2020;25:
251–95.
[53] Öztürk HH. Experimental evaluation of energy and exergy efficiency of a seasonal
latent heat storage system for greenhouse heating. Energy Convers Manage 2005;
46:1523–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2004.07.001.
[54] Qureshi ZA, Ali HM, Khushnood S. Recent advances on thermal conductivity
enhancement of phase change materials for energy storage system: a review. Int J
Heat Mass Transf 2018;127:838–56.
[55] Chandel SS, Agarwal T. Review of current state of research on energy storage,
toxicity, health hazards and commercialization of phase changing materials.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:581–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSER.2016.09.070.
[56] Cabeza LF, Castell A, Barreneche C, de Gracia A, Fernández AI. Materials used as
PCM in thermal energy storage in buildings: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:1675–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2010.11.018.
[57] Beaupere N, Soupremanien U, Zalewski L. Nucleation triggering methods in
supercooled phase change materials (PCM), a review. Thermochim Acta 2018;670:
184–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TCA.2018.10.009.
[58] Alva G, Liu L, Huang X, Fang G. Thermal energy storage materials and systems for
solar energy applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;68:693–706. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.10.021.
[59] Yan SR, Fazilati MA, Samani N, Ghasemi H, Toghraie D, Nguyen Q, et al. Energy
efficiency optimization of the waste heat recovery system with embedded phase
change materials in greenhouses: A thermo-economic-environmental study.
Journal of Energy Storage 2020; 30:101445. doi: 10.1016/J.EST.2020.101445.
[60] Yan S, Fazilati MA, Toghraie D, Khalili M, Karimipour A. Energy cost and efficiency
analysis of greenhouse heating system enhancement using phase change material:
an experimental study. Renewable Energy 2021;170:133–40. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.01.081.
[61] Andrews R, Pearce JM. Environmental and economic assessment of a greenhouse
waste heat exchange. J Cleaner Prod 2011;19:1446–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.JCLEPRO.2011.04.016.
[62] Benli H, Durmuş A. Evaluation of ground-source heat pump combined latent heat
storage system performance in greenhouse heating. Energy Build 2009;41:220–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2008.09.004.
[63] Benli H. Energetic performance analysis of a ground-source heat pump system with
latent heat storage for a greenhouse heating. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:
581–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2010.07.033.
[64] Bouadila S, Lazaar M, Skouri S, Kooli S, Farhat A. Assessment of the greenhouse
climate with a new packed-bed solar air heater at night, in Tunisia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;35:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.03.051.
[65] Baddadi S, Bouadila S, Ghorbel W, Guizani AA. Autonomous greenhouse
microclimate through hydroponic design and refurbished thermal energy by phase
change material. J Cleaner Prod 2019;211:360–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2018.11.192.
[66] Kooli S, Bouadila S, Lazaar M, Farhat A. The effect of nocturnal shutter on insulated
greenhouse using a solar air heater with latent storage energy. Sol Energy 2015;
115:217–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2015.02.041.
[67] Başçetinçelik A, Öztürk HH, Paksoy HÖ, Demirel Y. Energetic and exergetic
efficiency of latent heat storage system for greenhouse heating. Renewable Energy
1999;16:691–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(98)00253-5.
[68] Benli H, Durmuş A. Performance analysis of a latent heat storage system with phase
change material for new designed solar collectors in greenhouse heating. Sol
Energy 2009;83:2109–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2009.07.005.
[69] Naghibi Z, Carriveau R, Ting D-S-K. Improving clean energy greenhouse heating
with solar thermal energy storage and phase change materials. Energy Storage
2020;2:e116. https://doi.org/10.1002/EST2.116.
17
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022) 102241
[70] Bouadila S, Kooli S, Lazaar M, Skouri S, Farhat A. Performance of a new solar air
heater with packed-bed latent storage energy for nocturnal use. Appl Energy 2013;
110:267–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2013.04.062.
[71] Bouadila S, Kooli S, Skouri S, Lazaar M, Farhat A. Improvement of the greenhouse
climate using a solar air heater with latent storage energy. Energy 2014;64:663–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2013.10.066.
[72] Mishra L, Sinha A, Gupta R. Energy, exergy, economic and environmental (4E)
analysis of greenhouse dryer in no-load condition. Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments 2021; 45:101186. doi: 10.1016/J.
SETA.2021.101186.
[73] Pandey AK, Ali Laghari I, Reji Kumar R, Chopra K, Samykano M, Abusorrah AM,
et al. Energy, exergy, exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic (4-E) assessment of
solar water heater with/without phase change material for building and other
applications: A comprehensive review. Sustainable Energy Technologies and
Assessments 2021; 45:101139. doi: 10.1016/J.SETA.2021.101139.
[74] Zhou N, Yu Y, Yi J, Liu R. A study on thermal calculation method for a plastic
greenhouse with solar energy storage and heating. Sol Energy 2017;142:39–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2016.12.016.
[75] Chen C, Ling H, Zhai Z(, Li Y, Yang F, Han F, et al. Thermal performance of an
active-passive ventilation wall with phase change material in solar greenhouses.
Appl Energy 2018;216:602–12.
[76] Ling H, Chen C, Guan Y, Wei S, Chen Z, Li N. Active heat storage characteristics of
active–passive triple wall with phase change material. Sol Energy 2014;110:
276–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2014.09.015.
[77] Guan Y, Bai J, Gao X, Hu W, Chen C, Hu W. Thickness determination of a three-
layer wall with phase change materials in a chinese solar greenhouse. Procedia Eng
2017;205:130–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENG.2017.09.944.
[78] Llorach-Massana P, Peña J, Rieradevall J, Montero JI. Analysis of the technical,
environmental and economic potential of phase change materials (PCM) for root
zone heating in Mediterranean greenhouses. Renewable Energy 2017;103:570–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2016.11.040.
[79] Beyhan B, Paksoy H, Daşgan Y. Root zone temperature control with thermal energy
storage in phase change materials for soilless greenhouse applications. Energy
Convers Manage 2013;74:446–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2013.06.047.
[80] Berroug F, Lakhal EK, el Omari M, Faraji M, el Qarnia H. Thermal performance of a
greenhouse with a phase change material north wall. Energy Build 2011;43:
3027–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2011.07.020.
[81] Guan Y, Chen C, Han Y, Ling H, Yan Q. Experimental and modelling analysis of a
three-layer wall with phase-change thermal storage in a Chinese solar greenhouse.
Https://DoiOrg/101177/1744259114526350 2014;38:548–59. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1744259114526350.
[82] Chen W, Liu W. Numerical simulation of the airflow and temperature distribution
in a lean-to greenhouse. Renewable Energy 2006;31:517–35. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RENENE.2005.04.015.
[83] Rodrigues AM, Aelenei L. Thermal performance of a naturally ventilated cavity
wall. Int J Energy Res 2010;34:357–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ER.1564.
[84] Han F, Chen C, Hu Q, He Y, Wei S, Li C. Modeling method of an active–passive
ventilation wall with latent heat storage for evaluating its thermal properties in the
solar greenhouse. Energy Build 2021;238:110840. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENBUILD.2021.110840.
[85] Guan Y, Wang T, Tang R, Hu W, Guo J, Yang H, et al. Numerical study on the heat
release capacity of the active-passive phase change wall affected by ventilation
velocity. Renewable Energy 2020;150:1047–56.
[86] Kumari N, Tiwari GN, Sodha MS. Effect of phase change material on passive
thermal heating of a greenhouse. Int J Energy Res 2006;30:221–36. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ER.1132.
[87] Liu Y, Chen C, Guo H, Yue H. An Application of Phase Change Technology in a
Greenhouse. China Envelope Technologies for Building. Energ Effi 2006;II.
[88] Du X, Li P, Zhao C, Sang G. The effect of PCM with different thermos-physical
parameters on indoor temperature of Xi’an Solar Greenhouse. IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2021; 631:012014. doi: 10.1088/1755-
1315/631/1/012014.
[89] Llorach-Massana P, Peña J, Rieradevall J, Montero JI. LCA & LCCA of a PCM
application to control root zone temperatures of hydroponic crops in comparison
with conventional root zone heating systems. Renewable Energy 2016;85:
1079–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2015.07.064.
[90] Lazaar M, Bouadila S, Kooli S, Farhat A. Conditioning of the tunnel greenhouse in
the north of Tunisia using a calcium chloride hexahydrate integrated in
polypropylene heat exchanger. Appl Therm Eng 2014;68:62–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2014.04.014.
[91] Li L, Wang Y, Ren W, Liu S. Thermal environment regulating effects of phase
change material in Chinese style solar greenhouse. Energy Procedia 2014;61:
2071–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2014.12.078.
[92] Najjar A, Hasan A. Modeling of greenhouse with PCM energy storage. Energy
Convers Manage 2008;49:3338–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2008.04.015.
[93] Sobolciak P, Karkri M, Al-Maadeed MA, Krupa I. Thermal characterization of phase
change materials based on linear low-density polyethylene, paraffin wax and
expanded graphite. Renewable Energy 2016;88:372–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.RENENE.2015.11.056.
[94] Sobolčiak P, Abdelrazeq H, Özerkan NG, Ouederni M, Nógellová Z, AlMaadeed MA,
et al. Heat transfer performance of paraffin wax-based phase change materials
applicable in building industry. Appl Therm Eng 2016;107:1313–23.