Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

A review on research trends in solar still designs for domestic and

industrial applications
Vikrant P. Katekar a, *, Sandip S. Deshmukh b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, S. B. Jain Institute of Technology Management and Research, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hyderabad Campus, Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani, Hyderabad, India

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

Article history: Conventional solar still owns poor efficiency and low distillate output. Many investigators improved the
Received 14 November 2019 performance of solar still by varying the design of its components. This paper evaluates the effect of
Received in revised form several design modifications on the performance of solar still to investigate the most excellent design
7 February 2020
suitable for industrial and domestic application. From this review, it is found that for single-basin single-
Accepted 10 February 2020
Available online 13 February 2020
slope passive solar still, still integrated with the Fresnel lens with 638% improvement in productivity
appears to be a superior design. For single-basin single-slope active solar still, stepped still coupled to
Handling editor: Sandro Nizetic solar air heater is the most suitable design with 112% improvement in productivity. For double-basin
single-slope solar still, still with reflectors, flat plate collector and the mini solar pond is the finest
Keywords: design with productivity improvement of 127.65%. For a single-basin multiple-slope solar still, hybrid
Distil water solar still with PV/T collector is the productive design with 370% increase in freshwater yield. Out of all
Phase change material innovative energy-efficient design of solar stills, the most significant improvement in productivity is
Photovoltaic cell 676% delivered by tubular design consisting of a semicircular trough filled by a black cloth and coupled to
Thermoelectric generator
an external reflector. From this investigation, it is found that for domestic application, single-basin
Compound parabolic concentrator
single-slope cascade solar still is the most suitable and economical design; however, for industrial
Flat plate collector
application, tubular still with the wick is the most appropriate design.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Energy efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Passive solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Single-basin single-slope passive solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with the wick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2. Comparison of thermal performance of wick-type single-basin single-slope solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.3. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with finned and corrugated absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.4. Effect of finned, corrugated absorber on the performance of single-basin single-slope passive still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.5. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with reflectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.6. Effect of reflectors on the performance of single-basin single-slope solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.7. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with stepped absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.8. Effect of stepped absorber on single-basin single-slope solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.9. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with porous and suspended absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.10. Effect of porous and suspended absorber on single-basin single-slope solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.11. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with external condenser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.12. Effect of the external condenser on the performance of single-basin single-slope solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: vpkatekar@gmail.com (V.P. Katekar), ssd@hyderabad.bits-
pilani.ac.in (S.S. Deshmukh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120544
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

4.1.13. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with double glazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4.1.14. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with Fresnel lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.15. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with micro-and nano-particles coating on absorber plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.16. Assessment of different designs of single-basin single-slope passive solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Single-basin multiple-slope passive solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1. Single-basin double-slope passive solar still with the wick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.2. Single-basin double-slope passive solar still with finned absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.3. Single-basin double-slope passive solar still with reflectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.4. Single-basin double-slope passive solar still with modified condenser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.5. Single-basin multiple-slop passive solar still (Slope to all sides of basin) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Multiple-basin single-slope passive solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Multiple-basin multiple-slope passive solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.5. Assessment of different designs of multiple-basin multiple-slope solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Active solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Single-basin single-slope active solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2. Single-basin multiple-slope active solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. Single-slope multiple-basin active solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4. Assessment of active solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Other miscellaneous designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. Solar stills with greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Tubular solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Hemispherical solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.4. Spherical solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5. Concave basin solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.6. Multiple sleeve type of solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.7. Inflatable plastic solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.8. Comparison of thermal performance of miscellaneous designs of solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Hybrid solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1. Single-basin single-slope hybrid solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. Single-basin double-slope hybrid solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.3. Comparison of different hybrid solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Comparison of thermal performance of all the designs of solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.1. The trend in the development of solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2. Assessment of all solar still designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2.1. Comparison of single-basin single-slope solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2.2. Comparison of double-basin single-slope solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2.3. Comparison of single-basin multiple-slope solar still . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2.4. Comparison of all designs of solar stills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.3. Distil water cost analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Nomenclature h Specific enthalpy

I(t) Intensity of solar irradiation
TDS Total dissolved solids T Temperature
PPM Parts per million
GIS Geographical information system Subscripts
PCM Phase change material e evaporation
CPC Concentrating parabolic concentrator fg latent
PTC Parabolic trough collector i vapour
PVT, PV/T Photovoltaic-thermal p plate
PV Photovoltaic w water
TEG Thermo-electric generator g glass
m Mass th thermal/energy
A Area h efficiency
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
1. Introduction
Seventy-one per cent of the earth is covered by water; never-
theless, the problem of drinking water is escalating day by day.
Most of the water on the globe is not drinkable as it is highly saline.
Water available in rivers, lakes, ponds, ground wells is also not
potable as human activities pollute it. Polluted water affects the
health of human and animals. It also influences the quality and
quantity of agricultural products. Countries are forced to use large
desalination plants to provide drinkable water to the populace.
Desalination plants are energy-intensive, expensive and leaving a
carbon footprint on the environment (Liu et al., 2015). Countries
have to take additional burden of fossil fuels expenditure for
desalination (Leach et al., 2014; Leach and Deshmukh, 2015).
Several developing countries do not have proper potable water
distribution systems for individuals. People have to use their
portable water desalination systems similar to reverse osmosis.
However, these systems are not affordable to all the families as they
are expensive, needs frequent maintenance and highly energy-
intensive, which adds an extra financial burden on them. Many
people drink contaminated water unknowingly and suffer from
acute, chronic diseases, cholera, chronic diarrhoea, dysentery,
hepatitis A, typhoid, and polio (Tiwari and Sahota, 2017). Children
under five years are mostly suffered from waterborne diseases. If
they survived, they partially lost their learning ability and sustained
throughout their life (M. Pal et al., 2018).
Renewable energy sources such as wind, solar can be used for
distillation (Anwar and Deshmukh, 2020). Solar energy is an envi-
ronmentally clean, economical and viable energy source for
drinking water purification. Distillation of brackish water using
solar energy is recognised as solar distillation. The device used for
solar distillation is known as a solar still (El-Sebaii and El-Bialy,
2015). Solar still is capable of removing an inorganic, bacteriolog-
ical, organic, non-volatile contaminants and bacteria from the
water (Hanson et al., 2004). It can reduce the TDS level up to 30
PPM, which is acceptable for drinking (Ramteke et al., 2016). Solar
still comes under the low-carbon economy as it does not have any
impact on greenhouse gas (Speirs et al., 2010). Territories suitable
to use solar energy can be easily located utilising geographical in-
formation system (GIS), where solar still can be installed for com-
munity drinking (Khalid Anwar, 2018).
History states that in fourth century B.C., Aristotle demonstrated
a method to boil and condense the seawater to make it drinkable.
Greek navigators used to boil and condense the saltwater to pro-
duce freshwater. In late 1551 Centuries Arab alchemists and in 1742
Nicolo Ghezzi used solar distillation systems. Lavoisier used glass
lenses to concentrate solar energy for distillation (Tiwari et al.,
2003). In 1872, the first conventional solar still was erected near
Las Salinas in Northern Chile by a Swedish engineer Charles Wilson,
Fig. 1. Amendment in solar still designs.
3
to supply drinking water to workers and animals living nearby the
nitrate mine. For use in the emergency during the Second World
War, Maria Telkes developed air-inflated plastic solar still. Subse-
quently, solar stills were erected at St. John on the Virgin Islands,
the Daytona Beach Test Station of the U. S. Office of Saline Water
(Delyannis A.A., Delyanis E., 1984).
Solar stills are primarily categorised as passive and active sys-
tems (Varun Raj and Muthu Manokar, 2017). The most commonly
used solar still consists of simple passive still, where the heat
collection and distillation process take place within the same
equipment. The active solar still comprises of an additional source
(such as solar collectors, solar ponds, waste heat from industries as
well as power plants) to supply extra heat to saline water in the
basin to increase its evaporation rate (Lal et al., 2017). The active
stills are found costly and inconvenient to use for domestic appli-
cations; however, passive stills are simple in design and more
effortless in fabrication at a low cost, therefore suitable for house-
hold use. Distil water needed for many industrial applications such
as wet batteries, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, laboratories can be
easily generated using active solar stills (Zhang et al., 2018).
Single-slope single-basin passive solar still is a basic design of
conventional solar still (Maddah, 2019). At a water depth of 2 cm,
efficiency and daily freshwater yield were reported as 34.4% and
3.21 kg/m2 per day (Agrawal et al., 2017). These results indicate that
conventional still has poor energy efficiency and low distillate
output as compared with its size and cost, hence not fully com-
mercialised until today as compared with other methods of distil-
lation. Many investigators altered the design of solar still
components to make it more efficient and productive. Several
research investigations are available in the literature on the control
of design, and operating parameters to maximise the energy effi-
ciency and productivity of the solar still (Fig. 1).
From the installation of the first solar still in 1872, very few
communities started using solar still. After the comprehensive
research on solar still by many investigators till date, solar stills are
neither popular nor commercially available for common house-
holds and industries. It is required to take out the solar still from
laboratory to the public utility. Well designed and energy-efficient
solar still will reduce the carbon footprint on the environment
caused by conventional desalination system (Cheng et al., 2011).
However, from the huge available literature on modified solar still,
it is found extremely difficult to locate the best design of solar still
for domestic and industrial use. For this reason, it is required to
compare different solar stills from the application and economic
standpoint. Many investigators have written widespread reviews
on solar stills to understand technological development, to inves-
tigate and compare the thermal performance such as Yield of solar
stills with porous basins (Madani and Zaki, 1995), Present status of
solar distillation (Tiwari et al., 2003), A review of desalination by
4 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

solar still (Aybar, 2007), Researches and developments on solar

stills (Kabeel and El-Agouz, 2011), Wick type solar stills
(Manikandan et al., 2013), Energy exergy and thermo-economic
analysis of solar distillation systems (Ranjan and Kaushik, 2013),
Factors affecting basin type solar still productivity (Muftah et al.,
2014), Different parameters affecting the rate of evaporation and
condensation on passive solar still (Muthu Manokar et al., 2014),
Techniques used to improve the performance of the stepped solar
still (Kabeel et al., 2015), Parameters influencing the productivity of
solar stills (Prakash and Velmurugan, 2015), Advanced designs of
solar desalination systems (El-Sebaii and El-Bialy, 2015), Solar stills
system design (Vishwanath Kumar et al., 2015), Various special
designs of single basin passive solar still (Durkaieswaran and
Murugavel, 2015), Thermal models of solar still (Elango et al.,
2015), Different domestic designs of solar stills (Yadav and
Sudhakar, 2015), Factors affecting solar stills productivity and
improvement techniques (Sharshir et al., 2016), Solar stills: A
comprehensive review of designs performance and material ad-
vances (Dsilva Winfred Rufuss et al., 2016), Inclined solar still de-
signs: A review (Kaviti et al., 2016), Solar stills: A review of the
latest developments in numerical simulations (Edalatpour et al.,
2016), A Review of integrating solar collectors to solar still
Fig. 3. Steps used in conducting the review.
(Sathyamurthy et al., 2017), A review of optimum parameter values
of a passive solar still and a design for southern Bangladesh (Sarkar
et al., 2017), The cooling techniques of the solar stills’ glass covers
(Omara et al., 2017a), A review of solar still performance with re- application. The relevant research papers for this work have been
flectors (Omara et al., 2017b), Solar still with latent heat energy collected from various peer-reviewed international journals of
storage (Shukla et al., 2017), Thermal performance and exergy repute. Fig. 2 shows year-wise statistics of the number of papers
analysis of solar stills (Sharshir et al., 2017), Solar distillation system reviewed in this article on solar stills.
with nano particle (Parikh, 2018), Enhanced heat and mass transfer The selected papers are subsequently separated into five
in solar stills using nanofluids (Bait and Si-Ameur, 2018), A review different groups, namely: passive still, active still, other miscella-
of efficient high productivity solar stills (Arunkumar et al., 2019), neous design and hybrid still. Each group is further divided into
Effect of fin configuration parameters on performance of solar still subcategories such as single and multiple slops, single and multiple
(Mevada et al., 2020). Nevertheless, not any review compares and basins, modified absorber, use of energy storage material, re-
presents concrete conclusions on its suitability for domestic and flectors, and external condenser. These groups of papers are further
industrial applications. Hence this review work is undertaken. This developed by checking the references. Every article was studied
paper compares various designs of active and passive solar stills carefully, and their significant findings were noted down. The
invented in the last two decades with the sole aim to investigate the comparison was made in every group to find the single best per-
most suitable design for domestic and industrial use. forming solar still. Finally, all designs are compared to find out the
most energy-efficient and cost-effective model for domestic and
industrial application. The footsteps used for conducting the review
2. Methodology are shown in Fig. 3.
The detailed literature review is presented in subsequent sec-
In this paper, research work published on the control of the tions on innovative designs of passive still, active still, and other
design and operating parameters of solar still to maximise energy miscellaneous designs. Additionally, different innovative designs of
efficiency and productivity are reviewed to investigate the most hybrid still are compared, and finally, the review work has been
excellent solar still design for domestic as well as industrial summarised to identify the most excellent solar still design for
domestic and industrial application.

70 65

60 3. Energy efficiency
Number of publica ons

50
The thermal or energy efficiency of a solar still is the ratio of
40 36 evaporative heat transfer to the solar irradiation on the absorber
plate. It can be calculated as following (Sarhaddi et al., 2017)
30
19 P
20 mew hfg
hth ¼ P (1)
10 3600Ap IðtÞ
10 4
The latent heat of vaporisation of water, it can be estimated as
0
up to 2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2019  
Year hfg ¼ 3:1615  106  761:6Ti for Ti > 70 (2)

Fig. 2. Year-wise statistics of the number of papers reviewed on solar still.

 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
Fig. 4. Inclined still with the wick (Agboola et al., 2014).
Fig. 5. Solar still with porous jute absorber (Pankaj K Srivastava, 2014).
 desirable (Mevada et al., 2020). However, the surface area cannot be
hfg ¼ 2:4935  106  947:79Ti þ 0:13132T 2i
 solar still. In this case, corrugation (Zhang et al., 2019) or fins
 0:0047974T 3i for Ti < 70
The freshwater productivity is calculated by using
 
hew Aw Tw  Tg  3600
mew ¼
hfg
4. Passive solar stills
Passive solar stills work similarly to the hydrological cycle of
nature. It utilises heat accumulated in saline water. Process of
evaporation and condensation takes place within the equipment.
4.1. Single-basin single-slope passive solar stills
This section compares the thermal performance of different
modified single-basin single-slope passive solar stills.
4.1.1. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with the wick
The wick is the strip of porous material like jute, cotton through
which liquid can be moved by capillary action. Water flowing
through the wick surface gets quickly heated and evaporated into
5
vapours (Manikandan et al., 2013). Minasian et al. (Minasian and
Al-Karaghouli, 1995), tested a conventional solar still with a wick
and found that it was 85% more productive than traditional still.
Agboola et al. (2014), tested the inclined solar still with wick (Fig. 4)
and got 3.25 kg/m2 per day distilled water with daily efficiency of
40.1%.
Shrivastava et al. (Pankaj K Srivastava, 2014), studied solar still
consisted of floating blackened jute cloth pieces (Fig. 5). Produc-
tivity was increased by 57.4% as compared with conventional still
with an estimated cost of distilled water Rs. 5.04 and Rs. 7.09 for
modified and traditional solar still, respectively.
Haddad et al. (2017), used slow rotating vertical wick to increase
the productivity of the conventional solar still, as shown in Fig. 6.
Authors reported a 51.1% increase in productivity.
Sharon et al. (2017), tested stepped solar still with the wick,
shown in Fig. 7. They depicted that the distillate yield of inclined
still was nearly 19.76% higher than that of the unit with the wick
without inclination.
Agrawal et al. (Agrawal and Rana, 2018), tested single-basin
solar still with multiple spherical floating cloth absorbers, as
shown in Fig. 8. They got 46.33% and 55.73% higher distillate output
and daily efficiency as compared with conventional still
respectively.
4.1.2. Comparison of thermal performance of wick-type single-basin
single-slope solar stills
Table 1 shows that jute is the primarily used wick material in
addition to the sponge, cotton cloth and wool (Prabahar J.,
Balusamy T., 2015). The highest increase in productivity was
found as 85% for jute wick (Minasian and Al-Karaghouli, 1995).
Effect of the wool wick was found lowest with 19.76% increase in
productivity (Sharon et al., 2017).
4.1.3. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with finned and
corrugated absorber
The absorber plate is the essential component of solar still.
Energy received by the absorber plate decides the yield from the
solar still; therefore, the larger surface area of the absorber plate is
enlarged directly as it will increase the size and space occupied by
(3) (Maradiya et al., 2018) on the absorber plate is a better design.
Omara et al. (2011), improved the performance of solar still by
increasing the surface area of the absorber plate. They got a 40% and
21% increase in productivity for the finned and corrugated solar still
(4) respectively as compared with conventional still. The efficiency and
estimated cost of 1 L distilled water for finned, corrugated and
conventional still were 47.5%-0.041$, 41%-0.047$ and 35%-0.049$
respectively. Yousef et al. (Yousef and Hassan, 2019), studied three
cases; (i) Conventional solar still without phase change material
(PCM) (ii) Solar still with PCM (iii) Solar still with pin fins and PCM.
They depicted that solar still with PCM and pin finned absorber
(case iii) was the best arrangement as compared with the case (i)
and case (ii). The yield in case (iii) was higher than those of case (i)
and case (ii) by 17% and 7% respectively. Matrawy et al. (2015),
tested solar still using porous black cloths in a corrugated absorber
and got a 34% augmentation in productivity as compared with
conventional still (Fig. 9).
Selvendiram et al. (Selvendiran R, Manikandan D, 2014),
enhanced the productivity of conventional still using corrugated
absorber plate by 20e35%. Shalaby et al. (2016), tested the solar still
with V-corrugated absorber plate loaded with PCM underside and
wick above the absorber, as shown in Fig. 10. They got 12% and 11.7%
higher productivity for the still without the PCM and with PCM-
wick respectively. The reported cost per litre without PCM, with
6 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

Fig. 6. Rotating wick type solar still (Haddad et al., 2017).

Fig. 7. Tilted solar still with wick (Sharon et al., 2017).

PCM and PCM-wick, was 0.07182$, 0.08369$ and 0.09558$,
respectively.
Velmurugen et al. (Velmurugan et al., 2008), tested single-basin
solar still with wick, sponges and fins on absorber plate (Fig. 11).
They got 29.6%, 15.3%, 45.5% boost in yield of solar still for wick,
sponges and fins respectively.
plates are tested by many investigators to enhance the produc-
tivity of solar still. Fig. 12 illustrates that the performance of solar
still with fins is found better than corrugated absorber plate. Fins
with sponges are perceived as the best configuration as it de-
livers the highest increase in productivity of 45.5% (Velmurugan
et al., 2008).

4.1.4. Effect of finned, corrugated absorber on the performance of 4.1.5. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with reflectors
single-basin single-slope passive still Reflectors are employed to increase the concentration of solar
Literature confirms that the fins and corrugated absorber energy on the absorber plate resulting quick increase in saline
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544 7

Fig. 8. Solar still with a spherical floating absorber (Agrawal and Rana, 2018).

Table 1
Assessment of thermal performance of wick-type single-basin single-slope solar still.

Sn Author (s) Type of wick Increase in productivity (%)

1 Minasian et al., (Minasian and Al-Karaghouli, 1995) Jute cloth 85

2 Shrivastava et al., (Pankaj K Srivastava, 2014) Floating black jute cloth pieces 57.4
3 Haddad et al., (Haddad et al., 2017) Vertical rotating jute wick 51.1
4 Sharon et al., (Sharon et al., 2017) Wool wick 19.76
5 Agrawal et al., (Agrawal and Rana, 2018) Multiple spherical floating cloth absorbers 46.33

Fig. 9. Corrugated wick type of solar still (Matrawy et al., 2015).

water temperature and rate of evaporation. It is an economic

modification to improve the performance of still (Omara et al.,
2017b). Manchand et al. (Manchanda and Kumar, 2017), used a Fig. 10. Solar still with the corrugated absorber plate (Shalaby et al., 2016).

parabolic reflector with a combined solar distillation-cum-drying

unit (Fig. 13). They got an average of 2 kg/m2 per day freshwater
and 2 kg/m2 per day dried ginger. The estimated cost was Rs 2.55
water flow over the condensing cover of inverted absorber type
per litre for distilled water as well as per kg of dried ginger.
solar still (Fig. 15). They noticed that the evaporative heat loss co-
Yadav et al., (Yadav et al., 1996) presented a study on compound
efficient was strongly affected by operating temperature, but the
parabolic concentrator (CPC) integrated with single-basin still. The
convective and radiative heat loss coefficients were less tempera-
yield obtained was 3.04 L/m2 per day. Akash et al. (2000), tested
ture independent.
single-basin solar still integrated with a compound parabolic
Manchanda et al. (Manchanda and Kumar, 2019), experimented
concentrator and reflector. They got maximum productivity of 2.16
on inclined wick type solar still with a parabolic reflector. Experi-
lit/m2 per day at 35 tilt angle, as shown in Fig. 14.
mental results revealed that still gave a freshwater yield of 2.3 lit/
Suneja et al. (Suneja and Tiwari, 1999), analysed the effect of
8 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

4.1.6. Effect of reflectors on the performance of single-basin single-

slope solar still
Table 2 shows that parabolic reflectors, dish reflectors, com-
pound parabolic reflectors are different types of reflector used with
single-basin solar still to get better productivity. The comparative
study investigates that parabolic reflector with paraffin wax PCM is
found as the best arrangement to couple with single-basin still as it
delivers the highest yield of 5.243 kg/m2 per day (Kuhe and Edeoja,
2016).

Fig. 11. Solar still with wick, sponges and fins (Velmurugan et al., 2008).
m2 per day. Daily energy and exergy efficiency were evaluated as
20.5% and 0.96% respectively. The cost of water production and
drying was reported as 0.0285$/L. Kuhe et al. (Kuhe and Edeoja,
2016), experimented single-slope solar still loaded with PCM and
integrated with hemispherical dish reflector and got a 62% increase
in productivity. Arunkumar et al. (2013), augmented the efficiency
and distillate yield of conventional solar still using the hemi-
spherical reflector with paraffin wax PCM (Fig. 16). The productivity
was found as 4460 and 3520 mL/m2 per day for modified and
conventional still, respectively.
4.1.7. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with stepped
absorber
The solar collector collects the maximum energy when its
inclination is equal to the latitude of place (Sarkar et al., 2017).
Stepped still contains steps in a saline water basin to reduce and
maintain the constant space between the absorber and glass cover
(Bouzaid et al., 2019). Consequently, the stepped absorber is almost
parallel to the glass cover, which is inclined equally to the latitude
of the place. This arrangement offers more evaporation of saline
water and increases the distillation rate (Kabeel et al., 2015). Zoori
et al. (Aghaei Zoori et al., 2013), tested weir-cascade type solar still
(Fig. 17) and got the maximum energy and exergy efficiency as
83.3% and 10.5% respectively. Productivity augmentation was found
as 86.91% as compared with conventional solar still.

50 45.5
Percentage increase in produc vity

45 40
40 35
35
30
25
20 17
15 12
10
5
0
Fins Fins with PCM Corruga on Corruga on with Fins with sponge
PCM and wick
Fig. 12. Percentage increase in productivity of solar still with fins and.

Fig. 13. Combined solar still and ginger dryer (Manchanda and Kumar, 2017).
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
Fig. 14. Solar still with CPC (Akash et al., 2000).
Fig. 15. Inverted absorber type of solar still (Suneja and Tiwari, 1999).
Fig. 16. Hemispherical basin solar still with a concentrator (Arunkumar et al., 2013).
9
Radhwan (2004) studied stepped solar still built-in with the
paraffin wax PCM to store the heat energy. They reported 57% ef-
ficiency with potable water yield of 4.6 L/m2 per day. Sarhaddi et al.
(2017), tested two weir-cascade basin solar stills with and without
paraffin wax PCM. They reported the highest energy and exergy
efficiency with PCM at 76.69% and 8.59% respectively. Deshmukh
et al., (Deshmukh et al., 2008) experimented with comparing the
thermal performance of a single basin and stepped solar still.
Experimental results showed that the overall performance of
stepped still was more than a single basin still. The thermal effi-
ciency of stepped solar still was 72.38%, which was 127.46% higher
than single basin solar still. The cost of fabrication was more for
stepped still than the single basin, but the payback period was
short.
4.1.8. Effect of stepped absorber on single-basin single-slope solar
still
Table 3 shows that the weir-cascade type of solar still is the best
design of absorber for single-basin still with 83.3% increase in en-
ergy efficiency.
4.1.9. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with porous and
suspended absorber
The porous materials have higher thermal properties such as
high convective heat transfer coefficient, and superior thermal
conductivity compared to base materials (Rashidi et al., 2017). Use
of porous material is efficient techniques to get better heat transfer
and energy efficiency of solar still. Mohamed et al. (2019), experi-
mented solar still with basalt stones porous absorber and got a
123% increase in exergy efficiency as compared with solar still
without stones.
The suspended absorber plates made up of high thermal con-
ductivity materials are found to be suitable to reduce the pre-
heating time of saline water resulting in improvising the yield of
solar still (Panchal and Shah, 2012). El-Sebaii (El-Sebaii et al., 2000)
tested single-basin still with movable baffle suspended absorber
(Fig. 18). The basin water was divided into two partitions using the
absorber plate, which was moved up and down. The solar energy
absorbed by absorber was transferred to the upper and lower water
columns; therefore, the water temperature was quickly increased,
and productivity was improved by 20%.
Valsaraj (2002) examined conventional still provided with
gliding, pierced and folded aluminium sheet over the saline water
surface. The heat energy was concentrated at the water surface
layer and prevented the entire water mass from getting heated up
by convection. They reported a 43% improvement in potable water
yield.
4.1.10. Effect of porous and suspended absorber on single-basin
single-slope solar still
Table 4 shows that as compared with porous floating absorber,
perforated aluminium absorber is found better to increase the yield
of solar still. It improves productivity by 43% as compared with
conventional solar still (Valsaraj, 2002).
4.1.11. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with external
condenser
Quick and efficient condensation is necessary to get maximum
distillate production from a solar still. Glass cover absorbs heat
from the vapours results in its temperature rise and reduces the
condensation rate (Rahmani and Boutriaa, 2017). If these vapours
are taken out from still and condensed in external condenser would
increase productivity. It is found that the use of external condenser
enhances still efficiency irrespective of operating conditions (Abu-
Qudais et al., 1996). Tiwari et al. (1997), demonstrated double
10 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

Table 2
Assessment of reflectors on the performance of single-basin single-slope solar still.

Sn Author (s) Solar still Type of reflector Productivity (Kg/m2 per day)

1 Manchand et al., (Manchanda and Kumar, 2017) Single-basin solar still Parabolic reflector 2
2 Yadav et al., (Yadav et al., 1996) Single-basin solar still Compound parabolic concentrating collector 3.04
3 Akash et al., (Akash et al., 2000) Single-basin solar still Compound parabolic concentrator 2.16
4 Manchanda et al., (Manchanda and Kumar, 2019) Inclined wick type solar still Parabolic reflector 2.3
5 Arunkumar et al., (Arunkumar et al., 2013) Single-basin solar still with PCM Parabolic dish concentrator 4.46
6 Kuhe et al., (Kuhe and Edeoja, 2016) Single-basin solar still with PCM Parabolic dish concentrator 5.243

Fig. 17. Cascade solar still (Aghaei Zoori et al., 2013).

Table 3
Comparison of solar still with cascade absorber.

Sn Author (s) Solar still Energy Efficiency (%)

1 Zoori et al., (Aghaei Zoori et al., 2013) Weir-cascade type of solar still 83.3
2 Radhwan (Radhwan, 2004) Stepped solar still with built-in with PCM 57
3 Sarhaddi et al., (Sarhaddi et al., 2017) Weir-cascade type solar still 76.69
4 Deshmukh et al., (Deshmukh et al., 2008) Stepped solar still 72.38

condensing chamber solar still in which vapours of saline water
formed in the first chamber were condensed into the second
chamber. This arrangement elevated productivity by 35e77% as
Fig. 18. Solar still with movable absorber plate (El-Sebaii et al., 2000).
compared with conventional still. Haddad (Haddad et al., 2000)
used packed bed external condenser type solar still (Fig. 19). During
the day, the vapours from the solar still were condensed in the
packed bed condenser, and during night the packed bed condenser
was cooled by circulating water.
Rahman et al. (2019), improved the performance of a solar still
by modifying the absorber and by using an external water-cooled
condenser. They reported the maximum average yield of 3.15 L/
m2 per day with triangular channelled absorber plate. The experi-
mental results showed a 24e30% increase in productivity. Hussain
et al. (Rahim, 1995), tested solar still integrated with the external
condenser. They reported thermal and overall efficiency of 70% and
60% respectively. The system payback period was estimated for
nine months. Kabeel et al. (2014), enhanced the productivity of
solar still by using aluminium-oxide nanoparticles mixed in water
and by integrating the external condenser (Fig. 20). The results
showed that productivity was improved by 53.2% and 116% using
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544 11

Table 4
Effect of porous and suspended absorber on single-basin single-slope solar still.

Sn Author (s) Type of absorber Improvement in Productivity (%)

1 Mohamed et al., (Mohamed et al., 2019) Stone porous absorber 33.37

2 El-Sebaii (El-Sebaii et al., 2000) Movable baffle suspended absorber 20
3 Valsaraj (Valsaraj, 2002) Folded, floating, and perforated aluminium absorber 43

Fig. 21. Solar still fitted with double glass covers (El-Bahi and Inan, 1999).
Fig. 19. Solar still with a packed-bed condenser (Haddad et al., 2000).

Fig. 20. Solar still with an external condenser (Kabeel et al., 2014).

Table 5
Effect of the external condenser on the performance of single-basin single-slope solar still.

Sn Author (s) Solar still Improvement in Productivity

(%)

1 Tiwari et al., (Tiwari et al., 1997) Double condensing chamber solar still 35
2 Rahman et al., (Rahman et al., 2019) External condenser with basin type solar still 30
3 Kabeel et al., (Kabeel et al., 2014) External condenser with basin type solar still using aluminium-oxide nanoparticles in saline 116
water
12 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

4.1.13. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with double

glazing
By increasing the temperature difference between the
condenser glass cover and saline water, the condensation rate is
enhanced (Omara et al., 2017a). It can be done by cooling the glass
cover externally using water or air. El-Bahi et al. (El-Bahi and Inan,
1999), tested double glass cover type solar still with a separate
condenser (Fig. 21). They reported that the efficiency of the still was
increased by 45.83% due to condenser glass cooling with the
potable water production of 7 L/m2 per day.
Abu-Arabi et al. (2002), tested single-basin passive solar still
with double glass covers, as shown in Fig. 22. The saline water
Fig. 22. Solar still with double glass cover (Abu-Arabi et al., 2002).
passed through the gap between two glass covers, which kept it
cool. They got a 34% increase in productivity as compared with the
conventional still.

4.1.14. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with Fresnel lens

A Fresnel lens is a chain of prisms used to concentrate the
sunlight for heating and evaporation of saline water in solar still
(Xie et al., 2011). Johnson et al. (2019), tested a single-slope single-
basin solar still with Fresnel lens (Fig. 23). The productivity of still
was improved by 638%.

4.1.15. Single-basin single-slope passive solar still with micro-and

Fig. 23. Solar still with Fresnel lens (Johnson et al., 2019).
external condenser and condenser with nanofluids, respectively.
4.1.12. Effect of the external condenser on the performance of
single-basin single-slope solar still
Table 5 shows that the productivity of solar still increases using
an external condenser. It is found that productivity enhancement is
highest for basin type still with the external condenser and
aluminium oxide nanoparticles dissolved in water (Kabeel et al.,
2014).
nano-particles coating on absorber plate
The absorber plate is usually painted with dull black paint to
confirm high energy absorption. Thermal conductivity of the
absorber plate is another vital factor to increase the heat transfer
between absorber and saline water. Addition of micro- or nano-
particles in black paint is found to be an attractive solution to in-
crease the absorptivity and conductivity of the absorber plate
(Majid et al., 2015). Balachandran et al. (2019a), tested solar still
with micro- and nano ferric oxide particles (Fe2O3) coating on
absorber plate to improve the productivity of single-basin single-
slope solar still. The cumulative daily yield for micro- and nano-
coating was 3.23 kg/m2 per day and 4.39 kg/m2 per respectively.
Kabeel et al. (2017), added cuprous oxides (CuO) nanoparticles to
the black paint and recorded an increased heat transfer rate and
saline water temperature. The productivity was boosted by 25% as
compared to the conventional solar still at a weight fraction con-
centration of 40%. Kabeel et al. (2019b), tested pyramidal solar still
coated with titanium oxide (TiO2) nanoparticles mixed in black
paint and evidenced a 12% improvement in daily distillate yield.

700 638
Percentage increase in

600
500
produc vity

400
300
200 116
86.9
100 46.33 45.5 43 45.83
0
Wick Fins with Cascade type Floa ng External Double glass Fresnel lens
wick absorber condenser cover
using
nanopar cles
Fig. 24. Assessment of different designs of single-basin single-slope passive solar still.
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544 13

Fig. 25. Multi-wick double-slope solar still (P. Pal et al., 2018).

Fig. 26. Solar still with a finned absorber (Jani and Modi, 2019).

4.1.16. Assessment of different designs of single-basin single-slope
passive solar still
Fig. 23 compares the performance of single-basin single-slope
solar still with different design modifications. Investigators used a
wick, fins with wick, cascade absorber, floating absorber, external
condenser and Fresnel lens to develop productive solar still. Fig. 24
shows that productivity is increased in the order: floating absorber,
fins with wick, double glass cover, wick type, cascade type, external
condenser with nanoparticles, and, solar still with Fresnel lens.
Highest productivity augmentation is recorded for solar still with
Fresnel lens (Johnson et al., 2019). The use of Fresnel lens is found to
be economical as compared with the compound parabolic
concentrator. However, it is found expensive to use it with single-
basin solar still for domestic application (Pham et al., 2018). Mix-
ing of nanoparticles in saline water is costly and not found easy
everywhere (Parikh, 2018). In this outlook, cascade type passive
solar still is the most excellent design for domestic applications
with 86.9% improvement in productivity (Aghaei Zoori et al., 2013).
Fresnel lens may be used with solar still supplying distil water for
industrial application.

4.2. Single-basin multiple-slope passive solar stills

The earth is rotating around its axis; tracking of the sun is

Fig. 27. Rotating solar still with movable reflector (Assari et al., 2019). essential to collect the maximum energy (Vishwanath Kumar et al.,
14 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
Fig. 28. Pyramid type of solar still (Sathyamurthy et al., 2014).
Fig. 29. Pyramid tilted-wick type of solar still (Prakash et al., 2016).
2015). Tilting of basin type solar still is not possible; hence
multiple-slope solar still is a better alternative to collect the
maximum energy. This section compares an experimental investi-
gation on single-basin multiple-slope passive solar still.
4.2.1. Single-basin double-slope passive solar still with the wick
Double-slope solar still has two glass covers inclined on two
sides for better collection of solar energy. The optimum tilt angle for
glass covers depends on the direction of each surface concerning
the south direction (El-Maghlany, 2015). Pal et al. (P. Pal et al., 2018),
studied wick type double-slope solar still (Fig. 25) and got energy
and exergy efficiency as 35% and 3.83% respectively.
4.2.2. Single-basin double-slope passive solar still with finned
absorber
It is found that well-designed fins provide enhanced heat transfer
with less volume, weight and cost (Nagarani et al., 2014). Jani (Jani
and Modi, 2019) tested single-basin double-slope solar still with
hollow circular and square cross-sectional fins on the absorber plate
(Fig. 26). They got maximum productivity of 1.49 and 0.96 kg/m2 per
day from the circular finned and square finned still respectively.
Gnanaraj et al. (Gnanaraj and Ramachandran, 2017), tested
single-basin double-slope solar still with finned corrugated basin,
still with black granite, still with wick, still with external reflector,
still with all above modification and conventional still. The pro-
ductivity of conventional still was found as 1880 ml/m2 per day
however the productivity of the still with finned corrugated basin,
still with black granite, still with wick, still with reflectors and still
with all internal and external modification was 2995, 3210, 2690,
3655 and 5130 ml/m2 per day respectively. The enhancement in
productivity as compared with conventional still was 58.47%,
69.84%, 42.33%, 93.39%, and 171.43% respectively.
4.2.3. Single-basin double-slope passive solar still with reflectors
Assari et al. (2019), tested rotating solar still fitted with external
movable bottom reflectors (Fig. 27). The result indicated that
distilled water productivity was increased by 64% using rotating
mode than the fixed mode.
4.2.4. Single-basin double-slope passive solar still with modified
condenser
Fath (1997) studied the single-basin solar still with a shutter
type reflectors. Reflectors transferred vapour to the shaded side of
still where it condensed. Productivity was found as 10.7 kg/m2 per
day.
4.2.5. Single-basin multiple-slop passive solar still (Slope to all sides
of basin)
Sathyamurthy et al. (2014), tested triangular-pyramid type solar
still with and without PCM (Fig. 28). They reported a 35% increase
in productivity due to the use of paraffin wax PCM.
Fath (Fath H. E. S., El-Samanoudy M., Fahmy K., 2003) tested two
solar stills; the pyramidal still (slope in all four sides) and single-
slope solar still. The average daily productivity was almost equal
for both pyramid and single-slope still which was around 2.6 L/m2
per day, but average energy efficiency was found 30% for pyramid
and 33% for single-basin still. Prakash et al. (2016), analysed pyra-
mid wick-type solar still, as shown in Fig. 29. The average efficiency
was reported as 50.25% with a yield of 5.25 L/m2 per day. Produc-
tivity increased by 17.68% as compared to conventional still.
Wassouf et al. (2011), tested pyramidal still (slope to all the four
sides) and triangular prism still (double-slope). The still yielded
0.5 L/0.2 m2 per day and 0.9 L/0.6 m2 per day, respectively. Esti-
mated distil water cost was 0.063$ per litre for the triangular and
0.046$ per litre for the pyramidal solar still for the predictable life
span of 4 years.
Fig. 30. Double-basin double-slope stepped solar still (Dhurwey et al., 2019).
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
Fig. 31. Double-basin double-slope solar still (Cappelletti, 2002).
4.3. Multiple-basin single-slope passive solar stills
The condensation heat loss from condenser glass cover can be
utilised within the still for productivity improvement
(Rajaseenivasan et al., 2015). In multiple-basin type solar still, heat
from lower basin condenser cover is absorbed by saline water in the
upper basin; consequently, the water in the upper basin heats up
quickly. Thus distillate is obtained from both upper and lower ba-
sins (Mate et al., 2017). Al-Hinai et al. (2002), reported a compar-
ative study on single-effect and double-effect solar still. They got
potable water yield of 4.15 kg/m2 per day and 6 kg/m2 per day for
single and double effect solar still respectively.
4.4. Multiple-basin multiple-slope passive solar stills
Rajaseenivasan et al. (Rajaseenivasan and Kalidasa Murugavel,
Double-slope double-basin solar s
Single-slope double-basin solar s
Single-basin mul ple-slope wick-type solar s
to all four sides)
Single-basin mul ple-slope solar s (slope to all
three sides) with PCM
Single-basin double-basin solar s with rota ng
movable b m reflectors
Single-basin double-slope with finned, corrugated,
black granite, wick, with external reflector
Fig. 32. Comparison of different multiple-basin multiple-slope solar stills.
15
Fig. 33. Double-step single-basin solar still (Kalita et al., 2017).
2013), presented an experimental study on a double-slope single-
basin and double-slope double-basin solar still. Double-basin still
production was higher than the single-basin by 85%. Dhurvey et al.
(Dhurwey et al., 2019), tested double-basin, double-slope, stepped
solar still with paraffin wax phase change material (PCM) for
thermal energy storage (Fig. 30). The heat rejected by a lower basin
condenser cover was absorbed by saline water in the upper basin.
Steps were provided in the upper basin to hold the saline water.
They reported a yield of 4.596 L per day with a thermal efficiency of
27.21%.
Cappelletti et al. (Cappelletti, 2002), built double-basin double-
slope solar still using Plexiglas (a plastic material), as shown in
Fig. 31. The quantity of fresh water obtained from the still was re-
ported as 1.7e1.8 L/m2 per day.
4.5. Assessment of different designs of multiple-basin multiple-
slope solar still
Fig. 32 shows that the highest enhancement in productivity is
found as 171.43% for a single-basin double-slope finned corrugated
wick type solar still integrated with external reflector (Gnanaraj
85
44.57
(slope
17.68
35
64
171.43
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Percentage increase in produc vity
16 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
Fig. 34. Stepped still with solar air heater (Abdullah, 2013).
Fig. 35. Stepped still with wick and vacuum tube collector (Kabeel et al., 2012).
and Ramachandran, 2017). For single-slope double-basin solar still,
the most significant improvement in productivity is recorded as
44.57% (Al-Hinai et al., 2002) and for double-basin double-slope
solar still, the greatest improvement in productivity is recorded as
85% (Rajaseenivasan and Kalidasa Murugavel, 2013). For a single-
basin multiple-slope solar still, the maximum productivity
Fig. 36. Double-effect single-slope solar still (Kumar and Tiwari, 1996).
Fig. 37. Conventional and double-basin stepped still with reflector and solar pond (Joe
Patrick Gnanaraj et al., 2017).
improvement is found as 35% (Sathyamurthy et al., 2014).
5. Active solar stills
Active solar stills use some external device to preheat the water
such as solar water heater, solar air heater, solar pond, and heat
pump. They are expensive as compared with passive solar still
hence found suitable for industrial applications (Ranjan and
Kaushik, 2014). They operate at a comparatively higher tempera-
ture; therefore, the rate of evaporation of saline water is more;
consequently, more distilled water is obtained (Naim and Abd El
Kawi, 2003). This section compares the thermal performance of
different active solar stills.
5.1. Single-basin single-slope active solar stills
Mamouri et al. (Jahangiri Mamouri et al., 2014), tested solar still
integrated with thermosyphon heat pipes. They recorded the
maximum productivity and energy efficiency as 1.02 kg/m2 per hour
and 22.9% respectively. Monokar et al. (Manokar et al., 2018),
investigated inclined solar still integrated with a flat plate collector.
The daily productivity, energy and exergy efficiency was increased by
44.63%, 24.91% and 55.68% respectively as compared with passive
mode. Yadav et al. (Yadav and Prasadt, 1995), tested solar still joined
with a flat plate solar collector and recorded a 78.51% increase in
productivity. Sanjeev Kumar et al. (2000), depicted that annual yield
was optimum when the flat plate collector inclination was 150, and
still glass cover inclination was 200. The average productivity was
reported as 1770 kg/m2 per day. Kabeel et al. (2016), tested active still
loaded with PCM and supply of hot air into the saline water basin
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544 17

Fig. 38. Solar still equipped with a fan (Kianifar et al., 2012).

Fig. 39. Double-slope single-basin active solar still with PTC (Fathy et al., 2018).

from a solar air heater. Freshwater productivity was increased by

108%. Belyayev et al. (2018), reported that the integration of the heat
pump to solar still improved its productivity by 80%. The energy Fig. 40. Double-slope still coupled with solar water heater (Sethi and Dwivedi, 2013).
efficiency of solar still integrated with the heat pump using hydrate
salt, paraffin wax and without PCM was found to be 62%, 55% and
54% respectively. Kalita et al. (2017), tested solar still with a baffle
maximum yield of 3.94 L/m2 per day.
absorber plate, as shown in Fig. 33. In the first stage, they tested
Abdullah (2013) tested single-basin stepped solar still coupled
double-step single-basin solar still, and in the second stage, the
with a solar air heater and aluminium filling as energy storage
absorber plate was lined with jute wick. In the third stage, the
material (Fig. 34). They reported that productivity was increased by
number of steps was increased to four and charcoal was put into the
112% using solar air heater and aluminium filling and by 53% using
jute-lined absorber. Finally, a twofold glass cover was used to cover
only aluminium filling over conventional still respectively.
the jute-lined absorber plate of the four-step still. The fourth case
Kabeel et al. (2012), improved the performance of solar still
delivered the highest yield augmentation as 117.32% with a
using stepped basin with wick and vacuum tube solar collector
18 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
Fig. 41. Conical solar still with concentrating dish reflector (Chaichan and Kazem,
2015).
Fig. 42. Solar still coupled with CPC (Prasad and Tiwari, 1996).
(Fig. 35). The productivity of stepped still was increased by 57.3%
when compared with conventional still. The daily efficiency and
cost per litre of distillate were 53%-0.039$ and 53.5%-0.049$ for
stepped and conventional solar still, respectively.
Sanjay Kumar et al. (Kumar and Tiwari, 1996), studied active still
coupled to the flat plate collector (Fig. 36). An average yield of 7.5 L/
m2 per day was obtained during the active mode with the water
flow arrangement over the glass cover. The percentage increase in
productivity was recorded as 77.27%.
Gnanaraj et al. (Joe Patrick Gnanaraj et al., 2017), optimised the
performance of double-basin solar still using reflectors, flat plate
collector in addition to the mini solar pond (Fig. 37). The produc-
tivity of double-basin still, double-basin still with reflectors and
double-basin still with flat plate collector coupled to the mini solar
pond was found higher by 57.83%, 105.8%, and 127.65% respectively
as compared with the single-basin still.
5.2. Single-basin multiple-slope active solar stills
Kianifar et al. (2012), conducted an exergy analysis on pyramidal
solar still equipped with a fan (Fig. 38). They observed that the daily
productivity of active still was improved by 15% than the passive
one. In summer, the exergy efficiency was higher for the active
system. In winter, the exergy efficiency was nearly equal for both
active and passive system. Hence authors recommended the use of
a fan in summer only.
Voropoulos et al. (2001) demonstrated a solar still incorporated
with a flat-plate collector. The productivity of the system was about
double during the day. During the night, productivity reached to
triple since the water was continuously heated using tank water.
Concentrating collector with tracking system is more efficient in
solar energy collection than flat plate collector (Pranesh et al.,
2019). Fathy et al. (2018), tested double-slope single-basin active
solar still with parabolic trough collector (PTC) (Fig. 39). The solar
energy collected by the PTC was transferred to solar still using hot
oil pipes. They recorded 142.3% rise in yield as compared with
conventional solar still.
Sethi et al. (Sethi and Dwivedi, 2013), conducted an exergy
analysis of double-slope active solar still coupled with a solar water
heater (Fig. 40). The thermal efficiency was improved from 13.55%
to 31.07%, and exergy efficiency increased from 0.26% to 1.34%.
Chaichan et al. (Chaichan and Kazem, 2015), investigated the
effect of paraffin wax PCM and concentrating solar water heater on
the conical water distillation system (Fig. 41). The system concen-
tration efficiency, heating efficiency and productivity was increased
by 64.07%, 112.87%, and 307.54% respectively.
5.3. Single-slope multiple-basin active solar stills
Adhikari et al. (1995), studied multiple-basin solar still and got a
yield of 2 kg/h. They observed that daily distillate yield increased
with an increase in the number of basins. However, the increase in
productivity was decreased with an increase in the number of
stages. It was suggested that an optimum value of the number of
stages should be estimated using local parameters of operation and
cost of the solar still. Prasad et al. (Prasad and Tiwari, 1996),
examined a double effect active solar still coupled with concen-
trating parabolic concentrator (CPC) (Fig. 42). The yield from the
lower basin increased with the increase in water flow through CPC.
The total yield of 11.112 kg/m2 for a sunshine hour and 3.57 kg/m2
for an off sunshine hour was recorded during experimentation.
Panchal (2015) tested single-slope double-basin solar still
coupled to vacuum tubes with black granite pebbles in the basin
(Fig. 43). Productivity was increased by 65%, with an estimated
payback period of 195 days.
5.4. Assessment of active solar stills
Table 6 shows a comparison of thermal performance of active
solar still with different design modifications. The most substantial
improvement in productivity is 307.54% recorded for single-basin
conical solar still with PCM and integrated with concentrating so-
lar water heater (Chaichan and Kazem, 2015). The lowest
enhancement in productivity is 44.63% recorded for a single-basin
single-slope solar still with flat plate collector (Manokar et al.,
2018). The productivity of stepped solar still with vacuum tube
collector is increased by 57.3% (Kabeel et al., 2012) and with solar
air heater, it is increased by 112% (Abdullah, 2013). For single-slope
double-basin solar still with flat plate type collector, the produc-
tivity improvement is found as 65% (Panchal, 2015).
Fig. 44 shows that for single-basin single-slope active solar still,
still equipped with a solar air heater is found to be the excellent
design with 108% improvement in productivity over conventional
still (Kabeel et al., 2016).
Fig. 45 demonstrates the comparison of single-basin double-
slope active solar stills. The highest productivity augmentation is
307.54% for solar still embedded with PCM and integrated with
concentrating collector (Chaichan and Kazem, 2015). Productivity
improvement in a single-basin and double-basin solar still with flat
plate solar collector was found almost equal (Kumar and Tiwari,
1996; Yadav and Prasadt, 1995).
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544 19

Fig. 43. Double-basin solar still with vacuum tube solar water heater (Panchal, 2015).

Table 6
Comparison of thermal performance of active stills.

Sn Author (s) Solar still External device Improvement in Productivity

(%)

1 Monokar et al., (Manokar et al., 2018) Single-basin single-slope Flat plate collector 44.63
2 Yadav et al., (Yadav and Prasadt, 1995) Single-basin single-slope Flat plate collector 78.51
3 Kabeel et al., (Kabeel et al., 2016) Single-basin single-slope Solar air heater 108
4 Belyayev et al., (Belyayev et al., 2018) Single-basin single-slope Heat pump 80
5 Abdullah (Abdullah, 2013) single-basin single-slope stepped solar Solar air heater 112
still
6 Kabeel et al., (Kabeel et al., 2012) single-basin stepped solar still Vacuum tube solar collector 57.3
7 Sanjay Kumar et al., (Kumar and Tiwari, Double-basin single-slope Flat plate collector 77.7
1996)
8 Gnanaraj et al., (Joe Patrick Gnanaraj et al., Double-basin single-slope Reflectors, flat plate collector and mini solar pond 127.65
2017)
9 Fathy et al., (Fathy et al., 2018) Single-basin double-slope Parabolic trough collector 142.3
10 Chaichan et al., (Chaichan and Kazem, 2015) Single-basin conical type Energy storage system and concentrating solar 307.54
heater
11 Panchal (Panchal, 2015) Double-basin single-slope Flat plate collector 65

6. Other miscellaneous designs
Several investigators designed and tested energy-efficient solar
stills other than traditional active and passive solar still designs.
This section presents a comparative study on different miscella-
neous designs of solar still.
the greenhouse roof (Fig. 46). It was estimated that 40% of the solar
energy was transmitted to the greenhouse, and a selective glass
cover absorbed the remaining energy. The estimated water pro-
duction capacity was in the range of 1e1.6 kg/m2 per day.
6.2. Tubular solar stills

6.1. Solar stills with greenhouse
Rabhy et al. (2019), tested fully transparent solar still integrated
into the roof of an agricultural greenhouse. The system was 12.4%
efficient with a 60% reduction in power consumption of green-
house. Chaibi et al. (Chaibi, 2000), tested solar still integrated with
Elashmawy (2017) reported 676% increase in productivity using
tubular solar still with a semicircular trough filled with a black
cloth, as shown in Fig. 47. The concentration of solar irradiation on
the tube was increased using the parabolic concentrator.
Murase et al. (2008), developed a tube-type solar still with PCM
and got a 15% increase in total distillate productivity per day. Tang
20 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

120
108
Percentage increase in produc vy

100
78.51 80
80

60

40

20

0
Flat plate collector Solar air heater Heat pump

Fig. 44. Comparison of single-basin single-slope active solar stills.

et al. (2019), tested tubular still and recorded a 44.4% increase in Fig. 46. Solar still integrated with a greenhouse roof (Chaibi, 2000).
productivity. Kabeel et al. (2019c), tested tubular solar still with
cooling system for the condenser cover. The productivity, energy
and exergy efficiencies were improved by 31.4%, 32.6%, and 9%
respectively. The cost of distilling water per litre without and with due to the larger exposed cover area in the triangular system. It
condenser cover cooling was found as 0.023$ and 0.019$ respec- gave 200e300% improvement in productivity depending on the
tively. Abdullah et al. (2019), presented a rotating drum-type still weather and operational condition.
with the external condenser and copper oxide nanoparticles mixed
in saline water (Fig. 48). Results revealed that productivity was 6.4. Spherical solar still
increased by 300% by using the condenser, water heater, and
nanofluid as compared to conventional solar still. The estimated Dhiman (1988) presented a study on spherical solar still, as
cost of 1 L of distillate for conventional and drum still was about shown in Fig. 51. They reported a 30% increase in efficiency than
0.050 and 0.039$ respectively. that of a conventional still.

6.3. Hemispherical solar stills 6.5. Concave basin solar still

Karroute et al. (Karroute and Chaker, 2014), studied the effect of
hemispherical glass cover on the performance of solar still. Pro-
ductivity was increased by 32.47% due to cooling one side of the
glass cover under the shadow. Arunkumar et al. (2012), tested a
solar still with a hemispherical condenser cover (Fig. 49). The en-
ergy efficiency was 34% and increased to 42% with the top cover
cooling using water.
Ayoub et al. (2013), tested three drum-type solar stills with
different glass cover shape namely: (i) Double-slope cover (ii)
Single-slope cover (iii) Curved cover (Fig. 50). Double-slope cover
still showed a higher water temperature than other systems. It was
Kabeel et al. (Kabeel, 2009), tested a solar still with a concave
wick evaporation basin (Fig. 52). The result showed that the
average distillate productivity was 4.1 L/m2 per day. The maximum
energy efficiency and average daily efficiency was 45%, and 30%
respectively. An estimated cost of 1-L distillate was reported as
0.065$.
6.6. Multiple sleeve type of solar still
Hongfei Zheng et al. (2013a), tested the thermal performance of
the single, double and triple effect solar desalination system and

Energy storage system and

307.54
concentra ng solar water heater

parabolic trough collector 142.3

Reflectors, flat plate collector and mini

127.65
solar pond

Flat plate collector 77.7

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Percentage increase in produc vity
Fig. 45. Productivity improvement in single-basin double-slope active solar stills.
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
Fig. 47. Tubular solar still (Elashmawy, 2017).
Fig. 48. Solar still with solar water heater and the external condenser (Abdullah et al.,
2019).
found that the triple effect arrangement had superior performance.
For further experimental work, they developed a three-stage sleeve
type solar desalination device shown in Fig. 53 (Zheng et al., 2013b).
The hot seawater in the first-sleeve evaporated, and the vapour was
condensed underside of the second sleeve. Water in the second
sleeve absorbed the heat of condensation. The process was
repeated for the second and third sleeve, respectively. The system
was tested for a different gas medium between the sleeves such as
air, oxygen, helium and carbon dioxide. Experimental results
showed that, for the heating temperature of 85  C and oxygen as a
gas medium, the productivity was 0.58 kg per hour. It was 31.82%
larger when the air used as a gas medium.
6.7. Inflatable plastic solar still
Plastic material is an excellent alternative to develop collapsible
solar still to use during a travelling to satisfy the need for drinking
Fig. 49. Solar still with hemispherical condenser cover (Arunkumar et al., 2012).
21
water a single-family (Begum et al., 2018). R. Bhardwaj et al. (2016),
tested a plastic-inflatable type solar still, as shown in Fig. 54. They
got the freshwater production 0.75 l/h. The production of water was
further increased to 0.95 l/h with use of air circulation or by
keeping wet cloth over the condenser tubes.
6.8. Comparison of thermal performance of miscellaneous designs
of solar still
Table 7 shows that many investigators developed distinctive
solar stills whose designs are different from traditional active and
passive solar still. Tubular solar still with a semicircular trough
filled with a black cloth and reflector is found the most productive
design as it gave the highest increase in productivity of 676% as
compared with conventional solar still (Elashmawy, 2017).
7. Hybrid solar still
The hybrid system is a system which is made up of combining
two or more different systems. The ultimate success of the hybrid
system depends on its design, construction and reliability in the
long run (Chow et al., 2012). This section compares the thermal
performance of various hybrid solar stills.
7.1. Single-basin single-slope hybrid solar stills
Tiwari et al. (2015), tested solar still integrated with flat plate
collector, which was partially covered by photovoltaic thermal
panels (Fig. 55). They got 53.4% overall thermal efficiency with the
environmental cost 6.29$ per annum.
Mehdiabadi et al. (E. Hedayati-Mehdiabadi, 2019), tested step-
ped solar still associated with photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) collector
(Fig. 56). Productivity improvement was 20% as compared with
conventional still.
22 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
Fig. 50. Solar still with drum (Ayoub et al., 2013).
Fig. 51. Spherical solar still (Dhiman, 1988).
Fig. 52. Concave wick solar still (Kabeel, 2009).
Nazari et al. (2019), tested single-slope solar still integrated with
external thermo-electric glass cover cooling and copper oxide
(Cu2O) nanoparticles mixed in saline water. The maximum
enhancement in productivity, energy and exergy efficiency was
81%, 80.6%, and 112.5% respectively. The optimum cost per litre and
payback time was 0.0218 $/L and 13.8 months, respectively. Gupta
et al. (2018), examined solar still integrated with N-identical fully
covered photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) collector and compound
parabolic concentrator (CPC) (Fig. 57). The results were compared
for N-PVT-CPC integrated active still (Case i), N-PVT-FPC integrated
active still (Case ii), and conventional N-FPC active still the case (iii).
They reported that the average energy efficiency of the case (i) was
higher than the case (ii) by 10.60% but lower than case (iii) by
20.47%.
Al-Nimr (Al-Nimr et al., 2016) studied hybrid solar wind-water
distillation system and got 215 kg/m2 per day distillate output.
Al-Nimr (Al-Nimr and Qananba, 2018) tested single-basin single-
slope still coupled with a finned condensing chamber, photovoltaic
cells immersed in the basin water and thermoelectric generator
installed in the base of the basin. Productivity, still efficiency and
overall system efficiency was increased by 14%, 12.5%, and 11%
respectively as compared with the conventional system. Dehghan
et al. (2015), presented a study on solar still fitted with a thermo-
electric module (Fig. 58). Daily average energy and exergy efficiency
was found as 19.8% and 0.95% respectively.
Kabeel et al. (2019a), increased the performance of a single-
basin solar still integrated with solar dishes (Fig. 59). The per-
centage increase in productivity was 44.3%. It was observed that
system efficiency decreased with an increase in the number of solar
dishes. The price of distilled water was reported as 0.25 $/L.
Elbar et al. (2019), presented a study on the integration of solar
still with electric heater fixed in saline water basin operated by the
photovoltaic panel. Experimental results showed that still with PV,
Still with PV and black steel wool fibres, still with PV used as a
reflector only enhanced energy efficiency by 10%, 31.48%, 43.16%
respectively as compared with conventional solar still. The corre-
sponding value of exergy efficiency enhancement was 30.72%,
40.14% and 680.7% respectively. Xinxin et al. (2019), demonstrated
hybrid PV/T solar still. The maximum experimental overall exergy
efficiency was reached to 15.50%, and the average value was 14.02%.
Balachandran et al. (2019b), enhanced the freshwater productivity
of single-slope single-basin solar still using the condenser glass
cover cooling (Fig. 60). Solar PV panel was used to preheat the
water. The experimental result illustrated a 35% increment in pro-
ductivity as compared with the conventional type of solar still. The
productivity of still was further enhanced using the micro- and
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544 23

1- Tubular shell,
2- The third trough,
3- The second sleeving,
4- The second trough,
5- The first sleeving,
6- The first trough,
7- Heat exchange tube,
8- Fresh water tank,
9- Distillate out,
10- Constant temperature water bath,
11- Measuring device,
12- Pressure buffer balloon,
13- Seawater inlet.

Fig. 53. Multiple-sleeve type desalination system (Zheng et al., 2013b).

Fig. 54. (a) Photograph of plastic still. (b) The laboratory setup of plastic still (Bhardwaj et al., 2016).

Table 7
Comparison of thermal performance of miscellaneous designs of solar stills.

Sn Author (s) Solar still Modification Increase in productivity (%)

Elashmawy (Elashmawy, 2017) Tubular solar still A semicircular trough filled with a black cloth with reflector 676
Ayoub et al., (Ayoub et al., 2013) Double-slope single-basin Hollow drum-type solar still 300
Abdullah et al., (Abdullah et al., 2019) Rotating drum-type basin still External condenser and copper oxide nanoparticles 300
Murase et al., (Murase et al., 2008) Tube-type still With PCM 15
Jin Tang et al., (Tang et al., 2019) Tube-type still With heating pipe 44.4
Kabeel et al., (Kabeel et al., 2019c) Tube-type still Cooling system for the condenser cover 31.4
Karroute et al., (Karroute and Chaker, 2014) Single-basin still Hemispherical condenser cover 32.47
Arunkumar et al., (Arunkumar et al., 2012) Single-basin still Hemispherical condenser cover 42
Dhiman (Dhiman, 1988) Spherical solar still 30
10. Hongfei Zheng et al., (Zheng et al., 2013b) Tube-type still Multiple sleeve type 31.82

nano-ferrous oxide (Fe2O3) particles in the saline water. The pro-
ductivity was found 30.92% higher for the nanoparticles.
Ambade et al., (Ambade Sumit et al., 2009) integrated batch-
type solar water heater and single-basin solar still to carry out
water heating and distillation simultaneously. Maximum thermal
efficiency and distillate output were found as 55% and 556 ml/day.
Lan Xiao et al. (2019), developed innovative stepped solar still in-
tegrated with PV/T collector (Fig. 61). The saline water from the
storage tank was preheated by passing it through the PV/T collector.
The preheated water was then passed through the bottom channel
present underside of absorber plate where waste heat from the
absorber plate was engrossed, and its temperature increased
further. Water came out from the top channel and flowed down
over the stepped absorber on which it was distilled out. Authors
depicted that the rate of heat transfer was increased by 44% at an
optimised bottom channel depth of 0.01 m. The freshwater pro-
ductivity, thermal efficiency, and exergy efficiency were increased
by 51.7%, 17% and 30% respectively.
7.2. Single-basin double-slope hybrid solar stills
Sahota et al. (Sahota and Tiwari, 2017), optimised performance
of hybrid solar still (Fig. 62). The system consisted of partially
covered N-PVT-FPC coupled double-slope solar still without oper-
ating heat exchanger (system A), with a heat exchanger (system B)
and passive double-slope single-basin solar still loaded with nano-
fluid (system C). Hybrid system (A) gave a better performance than
system (B), and system (C) gave better results than system (A) and
system (B).
Rahbar et al. (2017), tested double-slope solar still fixed with
thermoelectric heating modules. They reported the maximum en-
ergy efficiency of about 25%. Cost of distilled water for the day and
night was 0.1422 and 0.237 $/L respectively. Al-Hamadani et al. (Al-
Hamadani and Yaseen, 2019), improved the yield of pyramid solar
still using DC-water heater by 370%.
24 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
Fig. 55. Active photovoltaic thermal solar still (Tiwari et al., 2015).
Fig. 56. Stepped cascade still with PV/T collector (E. Hedayati-Mehdiabadi et al., 2019).
7.3. Comparison of different hybrid solar stills
Table 8 shows that single-basin multiple-slope solar still with
PV/T collector is found more productive than other hybrid solar still
designs with productivity improvement of 370% (Al-Hamadani and
Yaseen, 2019). For single-slope single-basin solar still with external
thermo-electric glass cover cooling and copper-oxide nanofluid
gave highest productivity augmentation of 81%.
8. Comparison of thermal performance of all the designs of
solar still
Since the installation of the first solar still in 1872, a few com-
munities started using solar stills for drinking water purification. To
increase the productivity of solar still, many investigators have
implemented their innovative ideas on solar still. This section
presents the trend in the development of solar still and compares
the thermal performance of various modified active, passive,
miscellaneous and hybrid solar stills.
8.1. The trend in the development of solar still
Table 9 shows the trend of design modifications in solar still. Till
the year 2000, use of double-basin, wick, flat plate collector, com-
pound parabolic collector, double glass covers for condensation, the
separate condenser, and suspended absorber was used to improve
the productivity of solar still. From the year 2001e2010, in-
vestigators used capillary film, pyramid-shaped, stepped basin,
finned absorber, and concave basin type solar still. Use of PCM was
the first time reported in the year 2002 to reduce the heat loss from
a solar still. During the year 2011e2015, corrugated absorber, heat
pipe, thermoelectric generator, hemispherical condenser cover,
weir type cascade basin, concentrator coupled still with PCM,
porous wick absorber, triangular condenser cover, water heater
operated by PV panel were used to augment the productivity of
solar still. Application of TEG and PV panels were started from the
year 2012 and 2015, respectively. Integration of two different sys-
tems such as solar still with batch-type solar water heater, solar still
with the windmill, solar still with the solar dryer was reported in
the year 2009, 2016 and 2017 respectively. In between 2016 and
2019, use of solar air heater, parabolic dish reflector, nanoparticles
in saline water, rotating wick, PV/T-CPC, black-nano painted
absorber and Fresnel lens were used to develop productive solar
still. In the year 1988, spherical still was tested, but after that, no
experimental investigation was reported on it; however, tubular
stills were tested in the year 2008, 2017 and 2019. Recently in
2018e2019, it is observed that researchers are developing PV, PV/T,
TEG based hybrid solar stills. Fig. 63 shows the number of modified
designs first-time reported during different time-span.
8.2. Assessment of all solar still designs
In this section, all designs of passive, active, other miscellaneous
and hybrid solar stills are compared to investigate the most
excellent design of solar still for domestic and industrial
applications.
8.2.1. Comparison of single-basin single-slope solar still
Literature shows that single-basin single-slope solar still is
modified by the maximum number of investigators. Fig. 64 shows
that for passive solar still, still coupled to the Fresnel lens with 638%
improvement in productivity appears to be a superior design
(Johnson et al., 2019). For active solar still, stepped solar still
attached to solar air heater is found a most suitable design with
112% improvement in productivity (Abdullah, 2013).
8.2.2. Comparison of double-basin single-slope solar still
In this category, most of the active stills perform better than
passive stills. Fig. 65 shows that for double-basin single-slope solar
still, still with Reflectors, flat plate collector and the mini solar pond
is the most efficient design with productivity improvement of
127.65% (Joe Patrick Gnanaraj et al., 2017).
8.2.3. Comparison of single-basin multiple-slope solar still
Fig. 66 shows that for a single-basin multiple-slope still, hybrid
solar still with PV/T collector is found as the most productive design
with highest 370% increase in freshwater yield (Al-Hamadani and
Yaseen, 2019).
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544 25

Fig. 57. PVT-CPC integrated single-slope still (Nazari et al., 2019).

Fig. 58. Single-basin still with a thermoelectric module (Dehghan et al., 2015).

8.2.4. Comparison of all designs of solar stills
For single-basin single-slope passive solar still, still coupled to
the Fresnel lens with 638% improvement in productivity appears
to be a superior design (Johnson et al., 2019). For single-basin
single-slope active solar still, stepped solar still coupled to solar
air heater is found a most suitable design with 112% improve-
ment in productivity (Abdullah, 2013). For double-basin single-
slope solar still, still with reflectors, flat plate collector and the
mini solar pond is the most efficient design with productivity
improvement of 127.65% (Joe Patrick Gnanaraj et al., 2017). For a
single-basin multiple-slope solar still, hybrid solar still with PV/T
collector is found as the most productive design with 370% in-
crease in freshwater yield (Al-Hamadani and Yaseen, 2019).
Table 10 compares all designs of solar stills which gave maximum
distil water production in the corresponding category of solar
still. Table 10 shows that out of all innovative energy-efficient
designs of a solar still, the most significant improvement in
productivity is 676% given by tubular design consisting of a
semicircular trough filled by a black cloth and coupled to an
external reflector (Elashmawy, 2017).
The hemispherical condenser cover provides a larger surface
area for condensation; consequently, hemispherical condenser
cover type solar still is found to be more efficient than hemi-
spherical basin type solar still, as shown in Table 11.
Fig. 67 shows that for domestic application, single-basin cascade
passive solar still is found as more productive and economical
(Aghaei Zoori et al., 2013), however, for industrial application
tubular solar still with the wick emerges as a most excellent design
(Al-Hamadani and Yaseen, 2019). Table 12 shows a consolidated
report of the literature survey.
26 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

Fig. 59. Solar still coupled to solar dishes (Kabeel et al., 2019a).

Fig. 60. Solar still with solar PV panel and condenser glass cover cooling system (Balachandran et al., 2019b).

8.3. Distil water cost analysis 9. Conclusions

Fig. 68 shows the estimated cost of distilled water for different
solar stills. It is found that cost per litre is lowest for inclined wick
type solar still with parabolic reflector (Manchanda and Kumar,
2019) and the highest for single-basin solar still with solar dishes
(Kabeel et al., 2019a).
This communication evaluates the thermal performance of
different solar stills to investigate the most excellent design for the
domestic and industrial application so that they can be further
optimised to bring at the commercial level. From this review, the
following conclusions are drawn:

Table 8
Comparison of thermal performance of hybrid solar stills.
Sn Author (s)
Mehdiabadi et al., (E. Hedayati-Mehdiabadi Cascade type
et al., 2019)
Nazari et al., (Nazari et al., 2019)
Gupta et al., (Gupta et al., 2018)
Al-Nimr (Al-Nimr and Qananba, 2018)
Kabeel et al., (Kabeel et al., 2019a)
Elbar et al., (Elbar et al., 2019)
Balachandran et al., (Balachandran et al.,
2019b)
Al-Hamadani et al., (Al-Hamadani and
Yaseen, 2019)
Lan Xiao et al., (Xiao et al., 2019)
V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544 27
Fig. 61. Stepped PV/T solar still (Xiao et al., 2019).
Fig. 62. Solar still with PV/T-FPC collector (Sahota and Tiwari, 2017).
Solar still Modification Increase in
productivity (%)
Photo-voltaic thermal (PV/T) collector 20
Single-basin single-slope External thermo-electric glass cover cooling with copper 81
oxide nanofluid
Single-basin single-slope Photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) collector, and flat plate 20.47
collector (FPC)
Single-basin single-slope Finned condensing chamber with Photovoltaic thermal 14
(PV/T) collector
Single-basin single-slope Solar dishes with photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) collector 44.3
Single-basin single-slope Photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) collector 43.16
Single-basin single-slope Photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) collector 35
Single-basin multiple-slope (slope to all Photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) collector 370
four sides)
Single-basin single-slope Photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) collector 51.7
28 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

Table 9
The trend in the development of solar still.

Sn Modification in design noticed first-time Year of invention

1 Spherical solar still 1988

2 Multi-stage stacked tray solar still 1995
3 Wick-basin type solar still with external condenser 1995
4 Active solar still with flat plate collector 1995
5 Double effects solar distillation unit 1996
6 Solar still with compound parabolic concentrating 1996
7 Solar still with double condensing chamber 1997
8 Solar still with a double glass cover and a separate condenser 1999
9 Solar still integrated into greenhouse roof 2000
10 Single basin solar still with baffle suspended absorber 2000
11 Capillary film solar still 2001
12 Solar still with double-glass cover with cooling 2002
13 Double-effect solar still with PCM 2002
14 Pyramid slope solar still 2003
15 Stepped solar still with PCM 2004
16 Single basin solar still with fin 2008
17 Tube-type solar still 2008
18 Solar still with a concave basin and wick 2009
19 Solar still integrated with solar water heater 2009
20 Corrugated absorbers solar still 2011
21 Solar still with the heat pipe and TEG 2012
22 Hemispherical cover solar still 2012
23 Double basin solar still with vacuum tubes 2013
24 Weir type cascade solar still 2013
25 Concentrator coupled solar still with PCM 2013
26 Solar still with spherical jute cloth absorber 2013
27 Non-concentric, multiple sleeve type solar desalination system 2013
28 Triangular pyramid solar still using PCM 2014
29 PV with FPC active solar still 2015
30 Corrugated wick type solar still 2015
31 Hybrid solar-wind water distillation system 2016
32 Solar still using hot air injection and PCM 2016
33 Solar still with parabolic dish reflector and PCM 2016
34 Tubular still with parabolic concentrator 2017
35 Solar still cum drying unit with a parabolic reflector 2017
36 Hybrid double slope still loaded with nanofluids 2017
37 Basin type solar still with a vertical rotating wick 2017
38 Stepped cascade solar still connected to PV 2017
39 Pyramid solar still coated with nano black paint 2018
40 Single slope solar still with TEG and nanofluid 2018
41 PVT-CPC active solar still 2018
42 Multi-wick basin type double slope solar still 2018
43 Solar still using porous absorber 2019
44 Tubular solar still with PV 2019
45 Solar still with Fresnel lens 2019

 For single-basin single-slope passive solar still, still attached to

30 the Fresnel lens with 638% improvement in productivity appears
26 to be a superior design.
 For single-basin single-slope active solar still, stepped solar still
Number of modified designs reported

25
coupled to solar air heater is found a most suitable design with
112% improvement in productivity.
20
 For double-basin single-slope solar still, still with reflectors, flat
plate collector and the mini solar pond is the most efficient
15 design with productivity improvement of 127.65%.
 For a single-basin multiple-slope solar still, hybrid solar still
10
10 9 with PV/T collector is found as the most productive design with
370% increase in freshwater yield.
 Out of all innovative energy-efficient designs of solar stills, the
5
most significant improvement in productivity is 676% given by
tubular design consisting of a semicircular trough filled by a
0 black cloth and coupled to an external reflector.
Before 2000 2001-2010 2011-2019  Hemispherical condenser cover type solar still is more efficient
Year of publica on than hemispherical basin type solar still.
 The cost of the distilled water per litre is found to be lowest for
Fig. 63. Year-wise statistics of the number of modified designs reported.
inclined wick type solar still and highest for single-basin solar
still with solar dishes.
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544 29

Single-basin single-slope slope solar s with

638
Fresnel lens
External condenser with aluminium-oxide
116
nanopar cles in water

Solar air heater and aluminium filling 112

Solar air heater 108

Weir-cascade 86.91

Heat pump 80

Flat plate collector 78.51

Parabolic concentrator reflector 63.33

Floa ng blackened jute cloth pieces 57.4

Vacuum tube solar collector 57.3

Fins with sponge 45.5

Floa ng, perforated and folded aluminium sheet 43

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Percentage increase in produc vity

Fig. 64. Performance assessment of single-basin single-slope solar still.

Flat plate collector 65

Reflectors, flat plate collector and mini

127.65
solar pond

Flat plate collector 77.7

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Percentage increase in produc vity
Fig. 65. Comparison of double-basin single-slope solar stills.

 From this study, it is found that for domestic applications;
single-basin single-slope cascade passive solar still is more
productive and economical; however, for industrial applica-
tions, tubular solar still with the wick is the most appropriate
design.
 Identified designs of solar still provide an energy-efficient and
environment-friendly solution to the community. Solar still is
useful even in remote and village areas. It is easily fabricated
using waste material by locally available human resource. It will
reduce the impact (carbon footprint) of the desalination system
on the environment, which will be a tiny footstep towards
cleaner production.
 Literature shows that solar still is neither popular nor available
commercially widespread for domestic and industrial applica-
tions. This communication concludes with two solar still designs
which can be further optimised to bring them at the market
status.
From this study, it is revealed that stepped absorber provides
a surface almost parallel to the glass cover, it also ensures con-
stant spacing between the absorber plate and glass cover which
30 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544

400
370

350
307.54
Percentage increase in produc vity

300

250

200
171.43

150

100

50
15
0
Fan Finned, corrugated, with Photovoltaic thermal PCM and concentra ng
black granite, wick, with (PV/T) collector solar water heater
external reflector solar
s
Fig. 66. Comparison of single-basin multiple-slope solar stills.

Table 10
Comparison of all designs of solar stills.

Sn Author (s) Solar still Design modification Improvement in

productivity (%)

1 Single-basin single-slope Johnson et al., (Johnson et al., Single-basin single-slope Fresnel lens 638
passive solar still 2019)
2 Single-basin single-slope Zoori et al., (Aghaei Zoori et al., Single-basin single-slope Weir-cascade 86.91
cascade passive solar still 2013)
3 Single-basin double-slope Gnanaraj et al., (Gnanaraj and Single-basin double-slope Finned, corrugated, with black granite, wick, 171.43
passive solar still Ramachandran, 2017) with external reflector solar still
4 Single-basin single-slope Kabeel et al., (Kabeel et al., Single-basin single-slope solar air heater 108
active solar still 2016)
5 Double-basin Single-slope Fathy et al., (Fathy et al., 2018) Double-basin single-slope Parabolic trough collector 142.3
active solar still
6 Single-basin double-slope Chaichan et al., (Chaichan and Single-basin conical-type Energy storage system and concentrating solar 307.54
active solar still Kazem, 2015) water heater
7 Double-basin multiple slope Kianifar et al., (Kianifar et al., Single-basin multiple-slope Fan 15
active solar still 2012) (on all four sides)
8 Hybrid solar still Al-Hamadani et al., (Al- Single-basin multiple-slope Photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) collector 370
Hamadani and Yaseen, 2019) (slope to all four sides)
9 Tubular solar still Elashmawy (Elashmawy, 2017) Tubular solar still A semicircular trough filled with a black cloth 676
with reflector

Table 11
Comparison of hemispherical condenser cover and hemispherical basin type solar still.

Sn Author (s) Solar still Modification Efficiency (%)

Arunkumar et al., (Arunkumar et al., 2012) Single-basin Hemispherical condenser cover 34

Kabeel et al., (Kabeel, 2009) Single-basin Concave basin 30

accelerates energy transfer rate inside the solar still. Conse- productivity and efficiency. Literature shows that stepped solar
quently, more productivity and efficiency is attained. Corrugated still with corrugated absorber plate is not analysed till today. This
absorber plate provides a larger surface area for energy assort- system could unite the advantages of both stepped and corru-
ment and transportation to saline water; therefore, it offers more gated absorber plate. This design can be further optimised at the
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544 31

800

Percentage increase in produc vity

676
700 638
600
500
400 370
307.54
300
200
86.91
100
0
Weir-cascade Energy Photovoltaic Tubular s ll Fresnel lens
storage thermal with wick and
system and (PV/T) reflector
concentra ng collector
solar water
heater
Fig. 67. Comparison of thermal performance of different solar stills.

Table 12
Consolidated report on the literature survey.

Solar still Sub-type Best performing design from each group Final investigation

Passive solar stills  Single-basin single-slope passive so-  The highest productivity augmentation of  For domestic application; single-basin single-slope
lar still 638% was recorded for solar still with cascade passive solar still is found more productive
Fresnel lens (Johnson et al., 2019). and economical.
 Single-basin multiple-slope passive  The highest enhancement in productivity  For industrial application, tubular solar still with the
solar still was found as 171.43% for a single-basin wick is found the most appropriate design.
double-slope finned corrugated wick type
solar still integrated with external reflector
(Gnanaraj and Ramachandran, 2017).
 Multiple-basin single-slope passive  The most significant improvement in
solar still productivity was recorded as 44.57% for
single-slope double-basin solar still (Al-Hinai
et al., 2002).
 Single-basin multiple-slope solar still  The maximum productivity improvement
was found as 35% (slope to all the three
sides, with PCM) (Sathyamurthy et al., 2014)
 Multiple-basin multiple-slope pas-  For double-basin double-slope solar still, the
sive solar still highest productivity was recorded as 85%
(Rajaseenivasan and Kalidasa Murugavel,
2013).
Active solar stills  Single-basin single-slope active solar  The most substantial improvement in
still productivity was 307.54% recorded for
 Multiple-slope single-basin active single-basin conical solar still with PCM and
solar still integrated with concentrating solar water
 Single-slope multiple-basins active heater (Chaichan and Kazem, 2015)
solar still
Other miscellaneous  Solar stills with greenhouse  Tubular solar still with a semicircular trough
designs  Tubular solar still filled with a black cloth and reflector was
 Hemispherical solar still found the most productive with 676%
 Spherical solar still increase in productivity (Elashmawy, 2017).
 Concave basin solar still
 Multiple sleeve type solar still
Hybrid solar still  Single basin single slope hybrid solar  The single-basin multiple-slope solar still
still with PV/T collector was found as more pro-
 Single basin double slope hybrid ductive with 370% productivity improve-
solar still ment. (Al-Hamadani and Yaseen, 2019)

commercial stage for common household application. The pro- In future, solar still can be developed for rainwater harvesting
posed system would provide clean drinking water to an ordinary and river water distillation in extensive scale application using
family at an economical cost; which would reduce the illness and tubular solar still design.
deaths caused due to the consumption of contaminated water.
32 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
Double-slope solar s equipped by
thermoelectric hea ng modules
Solar s integrated with solar dishes
Concave wick evapora on surface
Rota ng drum-type s with the external
condenser and copper oxide nanopar cles
Stepped basin with wick and vacuum tube
solar collector
Inclined wick type solar s with a parabolic
reflector
Single-basin single-slope solar s with
parabolic reflector and drying unit
V-corrugated s with PCM and wick
Single-basin single-slope corrugated solar
s
Single-basin single-slope finned solar s ll
Single-basin single-slope solar s with
floa ng black jute cloth pieces
0 0.05
Fig. 68. Distil water cost analysis.
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.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their sincere thanks to the Editor and the
anonymous Reviewers for their constructive suggestions which
helped to improve the Manuscript.
References
Abdullah, A.S., 2013. Improving the performance of stepped solar still. Desalination
319, 60e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.04.003.
Abdullah, A.S., Essa, F.A., Omara, Z.M., Rashid, Y., Hadj-Taieb, L., Abdelaziz, G.B.,
Kabeel, A.E., 2019. Rotating-drum solar still with enhanced evaporation and
condensation techniques: comprehensive study. Energy Convers. Manag. 199
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112024, 112024.
0.1422
0.25
0.065
0.039
0.049
0.0285
0.036
0.09558
0.047
0.041
0.071
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Cost of dis water in $/L
Abu-Arabi, M., Zurigat, Y., Al-Hinai, H., Al-Hiddabi, S., 2002. Modeling and perfor-
mance analysis of a solar desalination unit with double-glass cover cooling.
Desalination 143, 173e182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00238-2.
Abu-Qudais, M., Abu-Hijleh, B.A.K., Othman, O.N., 1996. Experimental study and
numerical simulation of a solar still using an external condenser. Energy 21,
851e855. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(96)00050-3.
Adhikari, R.S., Kumar, A., Sootha, G.D., 1995. Simulation studies on a multi-stage
stacked tray solar still. Sol. Energy 54, 317e325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-
092X(95)00001-8.
Agboola, O.P., Al-Mutaz, I.S., Orfi, J., Egelioglu, F., 2014. Economic investigation of
different configurations of inclined solar water desalination systems. Adv.
Mech. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/925976, 2014.
Aghaei Zoori, H., Farshchi Tabrizi, F., Sarhaddi, F., Heshmatnezhad, F., 2013. Com-
parison between energy and exergy efficiencies in a weir type cascade solar
still. Desalination 325, 113e121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.07.004.
Agrawal, A., Rana, R.S., 2018. An Experimental of single sloped basin type spherical
floating jute cloth absorber. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 9, 122e130.
Agrawal, A., Rana, R.S., Srivastava, P.K., 2017. Heat transfer coefficients and pro-
ductivity of a single slope single basin solar still in Indian climatic condition:
experimental and theoretical comparison. Resour. Technol. 3, 466e482. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.reffit.2017.05.003.
Akash, B.A., Mohsen, M.S., Nayfeh, W., 2000. Experimental study of the basin type
solar still under local climate conditions. Energy Convers. Manag. 41, 883e890.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(99)00158-2.
Al-Hamadani, A.A.F., Yaseen, A.H., 2019. Experimental study of multi effect stages
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
PV panels solar still to enhance the productivity by utilizing water heater and
cooling fan. J. Univ. Babylon Eng. Sci. 275e286.
Al-Hinai, H., Al-Nassri, M.S., Jubran, B.A., 2002. Parametric investigation of a double-
effect solar still in comparison with a single-effect solar still. Desalination 150,
75e83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00931-1.
Al-Nimr, M.A., Qananba, K.S., 2018. A solar hybrid system for power generation and
water distillation. Sol. Energy 171, 92e105. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2018.06.019.
Al-Nimr, M.A., Kiwan, S.M., Talafha, S., 2016. Hybrid solar-wind water distillation
system. Desalination 395, 33e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.05.018.
Ambade Sumit, Tarun, Narekar, Vikrant, Katekar, 2009. Performance evaluation of
combined batch type solar water heater cum regenerative solar still. In:
Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology (ICETET), 2009 2nd Interna-
tional Conference On : Date, 16-18 Dec. 2009. IEEE, pp. 1064e1067. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ICETET.2009.173.
Anwar, K., Deshmukh, S., 2020. Parametric study for the prediction of wind energy
potential over the southern part of India using neural network and geographic
information system approach. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A J. Power Energy 234,
96e109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650919848960.
Arunkumar, T., Vinothkumar, K., Ahsan, A., Jayaprakash, R., Kumar, S., 2012.
Experimental study on various solar still designs. ISRN Renew. Energy 1e10.
https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/569381, 2012.
Arunkumar, T., Denkenberger, D., Ahsan, A., Jayaprakash, R., 2013. The augmenta-
tion of distillate yield by using concentrator coupled solar still with phase
change material. Desalination 314, 189e192. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.desal.2013.01.018.
Arunkumar, T., Raj, K., Dsilva Winfred Rufuss, D., Denkenberger, D., Tingting, G.,
Xuan, L., Velraj, R., 2019. A review of efficient high productivity solar stills.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 101, 197e220. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2018.11.013.
Assari, M.R., Basirat Tabrizi, H., Parvar, M., Forooghi Nia, M., 2019. Performance of
rotating solar still with rotating external reflectors. Int. J. Eng. Trans. B Appl. 32,
884e892. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2019.32.06c.13.
Aybar, H.S., 2007. A review of desalination by solar still. NATO Secur. through Sci.
Ser. C Environ. Secur. 207e214. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5508-9_15.
Ayoub, G.M., Malaeb, L., Saikaly, P.E., 2013. Critical variables in the performance of a
productivity-enhanced solar still. Sol. Energy 98, 472e484. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2013.09.030.
Bait, O., Si-Ameur, M., 2018. Enhanced heat and mass transfer in solar stills using
nanofluids: a review. Sol. Energy 170, 694e722. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2018.06.020.
Balachandran, G.B., David, P.W., Mariappan, R.K., Kabeel, A.E., Athikesavan, M.M.,
Sathyamurthy, R., 2019a. Improvising the efficiency of single-sloped solar still
using thermally conductive nano-ferric oxide. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06661-2.
Balachandran, G.B., David, P.W., Vijayakumar, A.B.P., Kabeel, A.E., Athikesavan, M.M.,
Sathyamurthy, R., 2019b. Enhancement of PV/T-integrated single slope solar
desalination still productivity using water film cooling and hybrid composite
insulation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06131-
9.
Begum, H.A., Yousuf, M.A., Rabbani, K.S., 2018. Effect of top cover material on
productivity of solar distillation unit. Bangladesh J. Med. Phys. 9, 11e16. https://
doi.org/10.3329/bjmp.v9i1.37303.
Belyayev, Y., Mohanraj, M., Jayaraj, S., Kaltayev, A., 2018. Thermal performance
simulation of a heat pump assisted solar desalination system for Kazakhstan
climatic conditions. Heat Tran. Eng. 7632, 1e13. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01457632.2018.1451246.
Bhardwaj, R., ten Kortenaar, M.V., Mudde, R.F., 2016. Inflatable plastic solar still with
passive condenser for single family use. Desalination 398, 151e156. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.011.
Bouzaid, M., Ansari, O., Taha-Janan, M., Mouhsin, N., Oubrek, M., 2019. Numerical
analysis of thermal performances for a novel cascade solar desalination still
design. Energy Procedia 157, 1071e1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2018.11.274.
Cappelletti, G.M., 2002. An experiment with a plastic solar still. Desalination 142,
221e227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00203-5.
Chaibi, M.T., 2000. Analysis by simulation of a solar still integrated in a greenhouse
roof. Desalination 128, 123e138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(00)00028-
X.
Chaichan, M.T., Kazem, H.A., 2015. Water solar distiller productivity enhancement
using concentrating solar water heater and phase change material (PCM). Case
Stud. Therm. Eng. 5, 151e159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2015.03.009.
Cheng, V., Deshmukh, S., Hargreaves, A., Steemers, K., Leach, M., 2011, November.
A study of urban form and the integration of energy supply technologies. In:
World Renewable Energy Congress-Sweden; 8-13 May; 2011, 057. Linko €ping
University Electronic Press, Linko €ping; Sweden, pp. 3356e3363.
Chow, T.T., Tiwari, G.N., Menezo, C., 2012. Hybrid solar: a review on photovoltaic
and thermal power integration. Int. J. Photoenergy. https://doi.org/10.1155/
2012/307287, 2012.
Dehghan, A.A., Afshari, A., Rahbar, N., 2015. Thermal modeling and exergetic
analysis of a thermoelectric assisted solar still. Sol. Energy 115, 277e288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.02.038.
Delyannis, A.A., Delyanis, E., 1984. Solar desalination. Desalination 3, 529e565.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-087872-0.00316-4.
Deshmukh, S.S., Jinturkar, A.M., Gawande, J.S., 2008. Comparative experimental
33
study of single basin and stepped type solar still. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. 20
(1/2), 79.
Dhiman, N.K., 1988. Transient analysis of a spherical solar still. Desalination 69,
47e55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-9164(88)80005-5.
Dhurwey, A.R., Katekar, V.P., Deshmukh, S.S., 2019. An experimental investigation of
thermal performance of double basin, double slope, stepped solar distillation
system. Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 9, 200e206.
Dsilva Winfred Rufuss, D., Iniyan, S., Suganthi, L., Davies, P.A., 2016. Solar stills: a
comprehensive review of designs, performance and material advances. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 63, 464e496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.068.
Durkaieswaran, P., Murugavel, K.K., 2015. Various special designs of single basin
passive solar still - a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49, 1048e1060.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.111.
Edalatpour, M., Aryana, K., Kianifar, A., Tiwari, G.N., Mahian, O., Wongwises, S., 2016.
Solar stills: a review of the latest developments in numerical simulations. Sol.
Energy 135, 897e922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.005.
El-Bahi, A., Inan, D., 1999. A solar still with minimum inclination, coupled to an
outside condenser. Desalination 123, 79e83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-
9164(99)00061-2.
El-Maghlany, W.M., 2015. An approach to optimization of double slope solar still
geometry for maximum collected solar energy. Alexandria Eng. J. 54, 823e828.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.06.010.
El-Sebaii, A.A., El-Bialy, E., 2015. Advanced designs of solar desalination systems: a
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49, 1198e1212. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.04.161.
El-Sebaii, A.A., Aboul-Enein, S., El-Bialy, E., 2000. Single basin solar still with baffle
suspended absorber. Energy Convers. Manag. 41, 661e675. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0196-8904(99)00141-7.
Elango, C., Gunasekaran, N., Sampathkumar, K., 2015. Thermal models of solar still -
a comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47, 856e911. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.054.
Elashmawy, M., 2017. An experimental investigation of a parabolic concentrator
solar tracking system integrated with a tubular solar still. Desalination 411, 1e8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.02.003.
Elbar, A.R.A., Yousef, M.S., Hassan, H., 2019. Energy, exergy, exergoeconomic and
enviroeconomic (4E) evaluation of a new integration of solar still with photo-
voltaic panel. J. Clean. Prod. 233, 665e680. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.06.111.
Fath, H.E.S., 1997. High performance of a simple design, two effects, solar distillation
unit. Energy Convers. Manag. 38, 1895e1905. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-
8904(96)00104-5.
Fath, H.E.S., El-Samanoudy, M., Fahmy, K.H.A., 2003. Thermal - economical analysis
and comparison between pyramid configuration and signal slope solar stills.
Seventh Int. Water Technol. Conf. Egypt 1e3, 565e590. April 2003.
Fathy, M., Hassan, H., Salem Ahmed, M., 2018. Experimental study on the effect of
coupling parabolic trough collector with double slope solar still on its perfor-
mance. Sol. Energy 163, 54e61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.043.
Gnanaraj, S.J.P., Ramachandran, S., 2017. Optimization on performance of single-
slope solar still linked solar pond via Taguchi method. Desalin. Water Treat.
80, 27e40. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.20583.
Gupta, V.S., Singh, D.B., Mishra, R.K., Sharma, S.K., Tiwari, G.N., 2018. Development
of characteristic equations for PVT-CPC active solar distillation system. Desali-
nation 445, 266e279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.08.009.
Haddad, O.M., Al-Nimr, M.A., Maqableh, A., 2000. Enhanced solar still performance
using a radiative cooling system. Renew. Energy 21, 459e469. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0960-1481(00)00079-3.
Haddad, Z., Chaker, A., Rahmani, A., 2017. Improving the basin type solar still per-
formances using a vertical rotating wick. Desalination 418, 71e78. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.05.030.
Hanson, A., Zachritz, W., Stevens, K., Mimbela, L., Polka, R., Cisneros, L., 2004.
Distillate water quality of a single-basin solar still: laboratory and field studies.
Sol. Energy 76, 635e645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2003.11.010.
Hedayati-Mehdiabadi, E., Sarhaddi, F., Sobhnamayan, F., 2019. Energy analysis of a
stepped cascade solar still connected to photovoltaic thermal collector. Int. J.
Automot. Mech. Eng. 53, 1689e1699. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004.
Jahangiri Mamouri, S., Gholami Derami, H., Ghiasi, M., Shafii, M.B., Shiee, Z., 2014.
Experimental investigation of the effect of using thermosyphon heat pipes and
vacuum glass on the performance of solar still. Energy 75, 501e507. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.08.005.
Jani, H.K., Modi, K.V., 2019. Experimental performance evaluation of single basin
dual slope solar still with circular and square cross-sectional hollow fins. Sol.
Energy 179, 186e194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.12.054.
Joe Patrick Gnanaraj, S., Ramachandran, S., Christopher, David Santosh, 2017.
Enhancing the design to optimize the performance of double basin solar still.
Desalination 411, 112e123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.02.011.
Johnson, A., Mu, L., Park, Y.H., Valles, D.J., Wang, H., Xu, P., Kota, K., Kuravi, S., 2019.
A thermal model for predicting the performance of a solar still with Fresnel
lens. Water 11, 1860. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091860.
Kabeel, A.E., 2009. Performance of solar still with a concave wick evaporation
surface. Energy 34, 1504e1509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.06.050.
Kabeel, A.E., El-Agouz, S.A., 2011. Review of researches and developments on solar
stills. Desalination 276, 1e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.03.042.
Kabeel, A.E., Khalil, A., Omara, Z.M., Younes, M.M., 2012. Theoretical and experi-
mental parametric study of modified stepped solar still. Desalination 289,
34 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
12e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.12.023.
Kabeel, A.E., Omara, Z.M., Essa, F.A., 2014. Enhancement of modified solar still in-
tegrated with external condenser using nanofluids: an experimental approach.
Energy Convers. Manag. 78, 493e498. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2013.11.013.
Kabeel, A.E., Omara, Z.M., Younes, M.M., 2015. Techniques used to improve the
performance of the stepped solar still-A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 46,
178e188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.053.
Kabeel, A.E., Abdelgaied, M., Mahgoub, M., 2016. The performance of a modified
solar still using hot air injection and PCM. Desalination 379, 102e107. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.11.007.
Kabeel, A.E., Omara, Z.M., Essa, F.A., Abdullah, A.S., Arunkumar, T., Sathyamurthy, R.,
2017. Augmentation of a solar still distillate yield via absorber plate coated with
black nanoparticles. Alexandria Eng. J. 56, 433e438. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.aej.2017.08.014.
Kabeel, A.E., Khairat Dawood, M.M., Ramzy, K., Nabil, T., Elnaghi, B., Elkassar, A.,
2019a. Enhancement of single solar still integrated with solar dishes: an
experimental approach. Energy Convers. Manag. 196, 165e174. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.05.112.
Kabeel, A.E., Sathyamurthy, R., Sharshir, S.W., Muthumanokar, A., Panchal, H.,
Prakash, N., Prasad, C., Nandakumar, S., El Kady, M.S., 2019b. Effect of water
depth on a novel absorber plate of pyramid solar still coated with TiO 2 nano
black paint. J. Clean. Prod. 213, 185e191. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.12.185.
Kabeel, A.E., Sharshir, S.W., Abdelaziz, G.B., Halim, M.A., Swidan, A., 2019c.
Improving performance of tubular solar still by controlling the water depth and
cover cooling. J. Clean. Prod. 233, 848e856. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.06.104.
Kalita, P., Borah, S., Das, D., 2017. Design and performance evaluation of a novel solar
distillation unit. Desalination 416, 65e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.desal.2017.04.025.
Karroute, S., Chaker, A., 2014. Effect of spherical geometry on the heat and mass
transfer in a solar still. EPJ Appl. Phys. 66 https://doi.org/10.1051/epjap/
2014130535.
Kaviti, A.K., Yadav, A., Shukla, A., 2016. Inclined solar still designs: a review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 429e451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.027.
Khalid, Anwar, Deshmukh, S., 2018. Assessment and mapping of solar energy po-
tential using artificial neural network and GIS technology in the southern part
of India. Int. J. Renew. Energy Resour. 8, 974e985.
Kianifar, A., Zeinali Heris, S., Mahian, O., 2012. Exergy and economic analysis of a
pyramid-shaped solar water purification system: active and passive cases. En-
ergy 38, 31e36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.12.046.
Kuhe, A., Edeoja, A.O., 2016. Distillate yield improvement using a parabolic dish
reflector coupled single slope basin solar still with thermal energy storage using
beeswax. Leonardo Electron. J. Pract. Technol. 15, 137e146.
Kumar, S., Tiwari, G.N., 1996. Performance evaluation of an active solar distillation
system. Energy 21, 805e808. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(96)00015-1.
Kumar, S., Tiwari, G.N., Singh, H.N., 2000. Annual performance of an active solar
distillation system. Desalination 127, 79e88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-
9164(99)00194-0.
Lal, R.K., Mishra, S., Dwivedi, J.P., Dwivedi, H., 2017. A comprehensive study of the
different parameters of solar still. Mater. Today Proc. 4, 3572e3580. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.02.249.
Leach, M., Deshmukh, S., 2015. Sustainable energy law and policy. Environ. Energy
Law 122e138.
Leach, M., Deshmukh, S., Ogunkunle, D., 2014. Pathways to decarbonising urban
systems. In: Urban Retrofitting for Sustainability: Mapping the Transition to
2050, pp. 191e208. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315850184.
Liu, J., Chen, S., Wang, H., Chen, X., 2015. Calculation of carbon footprints for water
diversion and desalination projects. Energy Procedia 75, 2483e2494. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.239.
Madani, A.A., Zaki, G.M., 1995. Yield of solar stills with porous basins. Appl. Energy
52, 273e281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(95)00044-S.
Maddah, H.A., 2019. Modeling and designing of a novel lab-scale passive solar still.
J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 51, 303. https://doi.org/10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2019.51.3.1.
Majid, Z.A.A., Razak, A.A., Ruslan, M.H., Sopian, K., 2015. Characteristics of solar
thermal absorber materials for cross absorber design in solar air collector. Int. J.
Automot. Mech. Eng. 11, 2582e2590. https://doi.org/10.15282/
ijame.11.2015.36.0217.
Manchanda, H., Kumar, M., 2017. Performance analysis of single basin solar distil-
lation cum drying unit with parabolic reflector. Desalination 416, 1e9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.04.020.
Manchanda, H., Kumar, M., 2019. Thermo-economic assessment of a novel design of
a solar distillation-cum-drying unit. Energy Environ. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0958305x19851611, 0958305X1985161.
Manikandan, V., Shanmugasundaram, K., Shanmugan, S., Janarthanan, B.,
Chandrasekaran, J., 2013. Wick type solar stills: a review. Renew. Sustain. En-
ergy Rev. 20, 322e335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.046.
Manokar, A.M., Winston, D.P., Kabeel, A.E., Sathyamurthy, R., 2018. Sustainable fresh
water and power production by integrating PV panel in inclined solar still.
J. Clean. Prod. 172, 2711e2719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.140.
Maradiya, C., Vadher, J., Agarwal, R., 2018. The heat transfer enhancement tech-
niques and their Thermal Performance Factor. Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci.
7, 1e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjbas.2017.10.001.
Mate, A., Katekar, V., Bhatkulkar, H.S., 2017. Performance investigation of solar still
for batteries of railway engine, Indian railways, at Ajni loco shed, Nagpur. In:
International Conference on Advances in Thermal Systems, Materials and
Design Engineering (ATSMDE2017). VJTI, Mumbai.
Matrawy, K.K., Alosaimy, A.S., Mahrous, A.F., 2015. Modeling and experimental
study of a corrugated wick type solar still: comparative study with a simple
basin type. Energy Convers. Manag. 105, 1261e1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2015.09.006.
Mevada, D., Panchal, H., Sadasivuni, K. kumar, Israr, M., Suresh, M., Dharaskar, S.,
Thakkar, H., 2020. Effect of fin configuration parameters on performance of
solar still: a review. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 10, 100289. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gsd.2019.100289.
Minasian, A.N., Al-Karaghouli, A.A., 1995. An improved solar still: the wick-basin
type. Energy Convers. Manag. 36, 213e217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-
8904(94)00053-3.
Mohamed, A.F., Hegazi, A.A., Sultan, G.I., El-Said, E.M.S., 2019. Augmented heat and
mass transfer effect on performance of a solar still using porous absorber:
experimental investigation and exergetic analysis. Appl. Therm. Eng. 150,
1206e1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.01.070.
Muftah, A.F., Alghoul, M.A., Fudholi, A., Abdul-Majeed, M.M., Sopian, K., 2014. Fac-
tors affecting basin type solar still productivity: a detailed review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 32, 430e447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.052.
Murase, K., Yamagishi, Y., Iwashita, Y., Sugino, K., 2008. Development of a tube-type
solar still equipped with heat accumulation for irrigation. Energy 33, 1711e1718.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.05.013.
Muthu Manokar, A., Kalidasa Murugavel, K., Esakkimuthu, G., 2014. Different pa-
rameters affecting the rate of evaporation and condensation on passive solar
still - a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 38, 309e322. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.092.
Nagarani, N., Mayilsamy, K., Murugesan, A., Kumar, G.S., 2014. Review of utilization
of extended surfaces in heat transfer problems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29,
604e613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.068.
Naim, M.M., Kawi Abd El, M.A., 2003. Non-conventional solar stills. Part 2. Non-
conventional solar stills with energy storage element. Desalination 153,
71e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(02)01095-0.
Nazari, S., Safarzadeh, H., Bahiraei, M., 2019. Performance improvement of a single
slope solar still by employing thermoelectric cooling channel and copper oxide
nanofluid: an experimental study. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 1041e1052. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.194.
Omara, Z.M., Hamed, M.H., Kabeel, A.E., 2011. Performance of finned and corrugated
absorbers solar stills under Egyptian conditions. Desalination 277, 281e287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.04.042.
Omara, Z.M., Abdullah, A.S., Kabeel, A.E., Essa, F.A., 2017a. The cooling techniques of
the solar stills’ glass covers e a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78,
176e193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.085.
Omara, Z.M., Kabeel, A.E., Abdullah, A.S., 2017b. A review of solar still performance
with reflectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68, 638e649. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.031.
Pal, M., Ayele, Y., Hadush, A., Panigrahi, S., Jadhav, V.J., 2018. Public health hazards
due to unsafe drinking water. Air Water Borne Dis. 7, 1e6. https://doi.org/
10.4172/2167-7719.1000138.
Pal, P., Dev, R., Singh, D., Ahsan, A., 2018. Energy matrices, exergoeconomic and
enviroeconomic analysis of modified multiewick basin type double slope solar
still. Desalination 447, 55e73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.09.006.
Panchal, H.N., 2015. Enhancement of distillate output of double basin solar still with
vacuum tubes. J. King Saud Univ. - Eng. Sci. 27, 170e175. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jksues.2013.06.007.
Panchal, H., Shah, P.K., 2012. Investigation on solar stills having floating plates. Int. J.
Energy Environ. Eng. 3, 1e5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-6832-3-8.
Srivastava, Pankaj K., Agrawal, A., 2014. Economics of a high performance distilled
water plant. IJRET Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. eISSN pISS, 2319e1163.
Parikh, R., 2018. Solar distillation system with nano particle: a review. J. Energy
Manag. 3, 29e34.
Pham, T.T., Vu, N.H., Shin, S., 2018. Design of curved Fresnel lens with high per-
formance creating competitive price concentrator photovoltaic. Energy Proce-
dia 144, 16e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.06.004.
Prabahar, J., Balusamy, T., Vargase, J., 2015. Augumentation of yield on double slope
single basin setup. Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. 3, 1e4.
Prakash, P., Velmurugan, V., 2015. Parameters influencing the productivity of solar
stills e a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49, 585e609. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.136.
Prakash, A., Jayaprakash, R., Kumar, S., 2016. Experimental analysis of pyramid wick-
type solar still. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 7, 1797e1804. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01430750.2017.1422143.
Pranesh, V., Velraj, R., Christopher, S., Kumaresan, V., 2019. A 50 year review of basic
and applied research in compound parabolic concentrating solar thermal col-
lector for domestic and industrial applications. Sol. Energy 187, 293e340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.04.056.
Prasad, B., Tiwari, G.N., 1996. Analysis of double effect active solar distillation. En-
ergy Convers. Manag. 37, 1647e1656. https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-8904(95)
00359-2.
Rabhy, O.O., Adam, I.G., Elsayed Youssef, M., Rashad, A.B., Hassan, G.E., 2019. Nu-
merical and experimental analyses of a transparent solar distiller for an agri-
cultural greenhouse. Appl. Energy 253. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2019.113564, 113564.
Radhwan, A.M., 2004. Transient performance of a stepped solar still with built-in
 V.P. Katekar, S.S. Deshmukh / Journal of Cleaner Production 257 (2020) 120544
latent heat thermal energy storage. Desalination 171, 61e76. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2003.12.010.
Rahbar, N., Gharaiian, A., Rashidi, S., 2017. Exergy and economic analysis for a
double slope solar still equipped by thermoelectric heating modules - an
experimental investigation. Desalination 420, 106e113. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.desal.2017.07.005.
Rahim, N.H.A., 1995. Utilization of a forced condensing technique in a moving film
inclined solar desalination still. Desalination 101, 255e262. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0011-9164(95)00028-Z.
Rahman, M.T., Nehar, L., Sarker, M.R.I., Tuly, S.S., Beg, R.A., 2019. Performance test of
a solar still for different surface to volume ratio absorber plate with an external
condenser. In: 8Th Bsme International Conference on Thermal Engineering,
p. 130003. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115949.
Rahmani, A., Boutriaa, A., 2017. Numerical and experimental study of a passive solar
still integrated with an external condenser. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42,
29047e29055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.07.242.
Rajaseenivasan, T., Kalidasa Murugavel, K., 2013. Theoretical and experimental
investigation on double basin double slope solar still. Desalination 319, 25e32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.03.029.
Rajaseenivasan, T., Kalidasa Murugavel, K., Elango, T., 2015. Performance and exergy
analysis of a double-basin solar still with different materials in basin. Desalin.
Water Treat. 55, 1786e1794. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.928800.
Ramteke, R.J., Dhurwey, A.R., Borkar, H.B., Rai, A.J., Malviya, A., Mate, A.A., Aftab
Sheikh, M., Katekar, V.P., 2016. Recent trends in solar distillation. Int. J. Res. Appl.
Sci. Eng. Technol. 4, 184e192.
Ranjan, K.R., Kaushik, S.C., 2013. Energy, exergy and thermo-economic analysis of
solar distillation systems: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 27, 709e723.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.07.025.
Ranjan, K.R., Kaushik, S.C., 2014. Economic feasibility evaluation of solar distillation
systems based on the equivalent cost of environmental degradation and high-
grade energy savings. Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 11, 8e15. https://doi.org/
10.1093/ijlct/ctt048.
Rashidi, S., Esfahani, J.A., Rashidi, A., 2017. A review on the applications of porous
materials in solar energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 73, 1198e1210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.028.
Sahota, L., Tiwari, G.N., 2017. Exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analyses of
hybrid double slope solar still loaded with nanofluids. Energy Convers. Manag.
148, 413e430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.05.068.
Sarhaddi, F., Farshchi Tabrizi, F., Aghaei Zoori, H., Mousavi, S.A.H.S., 2017. Compar-
ative study of two weir type cascade solar stills with and without PCM storage
using energy and exergy analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 133, 97e109. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.044.
Sarkar, M.N.I., Sifat, A.I., Reza, S.M.S., Sadique, M.S., 2017. A review of optimum
parameter values of a passive solar still and a design for southern Bangladesh.
Renewables Wind. Water, Sol. 4, 1e13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-017-
0038-8.
Sathyamurthy, R., Kennady, H.J., Nagarajan, P.K., Ahsan, A., 2014. Factors affecting
the performance of triangular pyramid solar still. Desalination 344, 383e390.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.04.005.
Sathyamurthy, R., El-Agouz, S.A., Nagarajan, P.K., Subramani, J., Arunkumar, T.,
Mageshbabu, D., Madhu, B., Bharathwaaj, R., Prakash, N., 2017. A Review of
integrating solar collectors to solar still. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77,
1069e1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.223.
Selvendiran, R., Manikandan, D., Suresh Babu, K., 2014. Experimental and Perfor-
mance Analysisi of Single Slope Single Corrugated Basin Solar Still: National
Conference on Green Engineering and Technologies for Sustainable Future-2014
Journal, pp. 141e143.
Sethi, A.K., Dwivedi, V.K., 2013. Exergy analysis of double slope active solar still
under forced circulation mode. Desalin. Water Treat. 51, 7394e7400. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.777945.
Shalaby, S.M., El-Bialy, E., El-Sebaii, A.A., 2016. An experimental investigation of a v-
corrugated absorber single-basin solar still using PCM. Desalination 398,
247e255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.042.
Sharon, H., Reddy, K.S., Krithika, D., Philip, L., 2017. Experimental performance
investigation of tilted solar still with basin and wick for distillate quality and
enviro-economic aspects. Desalination 410, 30e54. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.desal.2017.01.035.
Sharshir, S.W., Yang, N., Peng, G., Kabeel, A.E., 2016. Factors Affecting Solar Stills
Productivity and Improvement Techniques: A Detailed Review, Applied Ther-
mal Engineering. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2015.11.041.
Sharshir, S.W., Elsheikh, A.H., Peng, G., Yang, N., El-Samadony, M.O.A., Kabeel, A.E.,
2017. Thermal performance and exergy analysis of solar stills e a review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 73, 521e544. https://doi.org/10.1016/
35
j.rser.2017.01.156.
Shukla, A., Kant, K., Sharma, A., 2017. Solar still with latent heat energy storage: a
review. Innovat. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 41, 34e46. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ifset.2017.01.004.
Speirs, J., Gross, R., Deshmukh, S., Heptonstall, P., Munuera, L., Leach, M., Torriti, J.,
2010. Heat delivery in a low carbon economy. In: BIEE Conference.
Suneja, S., Tiwari, G.N., 1999. Effect of water flow on internal heat transfer solar
distillation. Energy Convers. Manag. 40, 509e518. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0196-8904(98)00131-9.
Tang, J., Wang, C., Xie, W., Xia, Y., Yu, T., Chen, Z., 2019. Study on the heat and mass
transfer performance of a tubular still enhanced by hydrophilic surface modi-
fication. Desalination 469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.114089, 114089.
Tiwari, G.N., Sahota, L., 2017. Review on the energy and economic efficiencies of
passive and active solar distillation systems. Desalination 401, 151e179. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.08.023.
Tiwari, G.N., Kupfermann, A., Aggarwal, S., 1997. A new design for a double-
condensing chamber solar still. Desalination 114, 153e164. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0011-9164(98)00007-1.
Tiwari, G.N., Singh, H.N., Tripathi, R., 2003. Present status of solar distillation. Sol.
Energy 75, 367e373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2003.07.005.
Tiwari, G.N., Yadav, J.K., Singh, D.B., Al-Helal, I.M., Abdel-Ghany, A.M., 2015. Exer-
goeconomic and enviroeconomic analyses of partially covered photovoltaic flat
plate collector active solar distillation system. Desalination 367, 186e196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.04.010.
Valsaraj, P., 2002. An experimental study on solar distillation in a single slope basin
still by surface heating the water mass. Renew. Energy 25, 607e612. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(01)00094-5.
Varun Raj, S., Muthu Manokar, A., 2017. Design and analysis of solar still. Mater.
Today Proc. 4, 9179e9185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.275.
Velmurugan, V., Gopalakrishnan, M., Raghu, R., Srithar, K., 2008. Single basin solar
still with fin for enhancing productivity. Energy Convers. Manag. 49,
2602e2608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.05.010.
Vishwanath Kumar, P., Kumar, A., Prakash, O., Kaviti, A.K., 2015. Solar stills system
design: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 153e181. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.103.
Voropoulos, K., Mathioulakis, E., Belessiotis, V., 2001. Experimental investigation of
a solar still coupled with solar collectors. Desalination 138, 103e110. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00251-X.
Wassouf, P., Peska, T., Singh, R., Akbarzadeh, A., 2011. Novel and low cost designs of
portable solar stills. Desalination 276, 294e302. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.desal.2011.03.069.
Xiao, L., Shi, R., Wu, S.Y., Chen, Z.L., 2019. Performance study on a photovoltaic
thermal (PV/T) stepped solar still with a bottom channel. Desalination 471.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.114129, 114129.
Xie, W.T., Dai, Y.J., Wang, R.Z., Sumathy, K., 2011. Concentrated solar energy appli-
cations using Fresnel lenses: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15,
2588e2606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.03.031.
Xinxin, G., Heng, Z., Haiping, C., Kai, L., Jiguang, H., Haowen, L., 2019. Experimental
and theoretical investigation on a hybrid LCPV/T solar still system. Desalination
468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.07.003, 114063.
Yadav, Y.P., Prasadt, A.S., 1995. Performance analysis of a high temprature solar
distillation system. Pergamon 36, 365e374.
Yadav, S., Sudhakar, K., 2015. Different domestic designs of solar stills: a review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47, 718e731. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.03.064.
Yadav, Y.P., Yadav, A.K., Anwar, N., Eames, P.C., Norton, B., 1996. An Asymmetric line
Axis compound parabolic concentrating single basin solar still. WREC 26,
551e556.
Yousef, M.S., Hassan, H., 2019. Energetic and exergetic performance assessment of
the inclusion of phase change materials (PCM) in a solar distillation system.
Energy Convers. Manag. 179, 349e361. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2018.10.078.
Zhang, Y., Sivakumar, M., Yang, S., Enever, K., Ramezanianpour, M., 2018. Application
of solar energy in water treatment processes: a review. Desalination 428,
116e145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.11.020.
Zhang, J., Zhu, X., Mondejar, M.E., Haglind, F., 2019. A review of heat transfer
enhancement techniques in plate heat exchangers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
101, 305e328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.017.
Zheng, H., Chang, Z., Chen, Z., Xie, G., Wang, H., 2013a. Experimental investigation
and performance analysis on a group of multi-effect tubular solar desalination
devices. Desalination 311, 62e68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.11.021.
Zheng, H., Chang, Z., Zheng, Z., Chen, Z., Su, Y., 2013b. Performance analysis and
experimental verification of a multi-sleeve tubular still filled with different gas
media. Desalination 331, 56e61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.10.012.