Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/energy-for-sustainable-development

Experimental investigations of front and rear side soiling on bifacial PV

module under different installations and environmental conditions
Gautam Raina, Sunanda Sinha *
Centre for Energy and Environment, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur 302017, Rajasthan, India

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

Keywords: Numerous aspects of performance assessment of bifacial PV have been undertaken over the years, however, an
Bifacial area where knowledge lacks, is concerning the negative impact of soiling on individual side of a bifacial module.
Environmental parameters An in-depth study has been presented where the soiling losses and rates for individual sides of a bifacial module
Soiling rate
have been quantified through experiments. A soiling rate of 0.328 %/day was observed for bifacial module, while
Vertical orientation
the rear side soiling rate was measured to be equal to 0.031 %/day, which was significantly lower than the front
of the module. The impact of wind speed and relative humidity was investigated on the soiling losses for the
module, along with a detailed assessment of effect of wind direction on the soiling on individual sides of the
module. A common metric to analyse bifacial modules against monofacial is bifacial gain which was observed to
be greater for soiled module (13.98 %) compared to clean module (12.92 %) due to significant variation in
available irradiance to the front side of the module. Finally, a comparative assessment of the impact of orien­
tation on the soiling losses was conducted and the results showed that significantly lower soiling losses (~2 %)
and soiling rate (bifacial~0.063 %/day and bifacial rear~0.047 %/day) was observed for a vertically installed
bifacial module. The results are significant as they direct towards the applicability of bifacial modules in regions
with prevailing dust and will assist in deciding which type of mitigation strategies can be explored for individual
sides of a bifacial module.

(a)). While most PV plants today employ conventional monofacial

Introduction
Recent advances in photovoltaics have demonstrated the ability of
bifacial modules to generate an enhanced electrical output relative to
monofacial modules through dual side irradiance absorption. This
improved output is a function of several parameters such as module
elevation above ground (Em), ground albedo (ρg), tilt of the module (β),
orientation of the bifacial module (γm) etc. (Raina & Sinha, 2022). A
subsequent impact of this enhancement has been the substantial in­
crease in development and deployment of this technology. An attractive
characteristic of bifacial modules is the opportunity vertical E-W
installation dual side absorption provides in place of the conventional N-
S orientation, which allows for dual peak being observed along with
increased energy density (Ledesma et al., 2020). This further allows for
better response to peak demand, reduced storage requirements, appli­
cation in unconventional setups like agrovoltaics, BIPV etc. (Rodríguez-
Gallegos et al., 2020). The International technological roadmap for
photovoltaics (ITRPV) 2021 report suggests expected trend for bifacial
PV technology acceptance will rise up to 85 % in the next decade (Fig. 1
modules as shown in Fig. 1(b), it is expected that the share of bifacial PV
modules will rise to about 60 % in the next three years while 20 %–30 %
of the manufactured bifacial cells are estimated to be used in monofacial
modules. The report also predicts that the major application of bifacial
PV modules will be in PV plant installations (International Technology
Roadmap for PV, n.d.). Over the years, several aspects of the perfor­
mance of bifacial PV have been undertaken. However, insufficient
knowledge concerning the negative impacts of soiling on module per­
formance has resulted in under-development of adequate soiling miti­
gation strategies for bifacial PV plants.
Soiling on bifacial PV modules
Soiling is second only to high ambient temperatures and fluctuating
levels of irradiance in degrading the performance of large scale PV
plants. Average annual power reduction due to soiling in monofacial PV
plants has been recorded to be in the range of 3 %–6 % (Gostein et al.,
2014; Kimber et al., 2006), while annual soiling losses in highly polluted
regions have been observed to be up to 14 % (Kimber et al., 2006), and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sunanda.cee@mnit.ac.in (S. Sinha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2023.01.001
Received 25 October 2022; Received in revised form 29 December 2022; Accepted 2 January 2023
Available online 16 January 2023
0973-0826/© 2023 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
G. Raina and S. Sinha Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313

Nomenclature PMAX Maximum power (W)

PR Performance ratio
ASC Anti-soiling coating PV Photovoltaics
Avg Average PVSyst Photovoltaic system software
BG Bifacial gain (%) r Pearson’s correlation coefficient
Bi Bifacial R Rear
BIPV Building integrated photovoltaics RH Relative humidity (%)
c Clean RSo Soiling ratio
c_c Calibration constant for clean module ref Reference
c_s Calibration constant for soiled module s Soiled
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board SL Soiling loss (%)
Em Module elevation (m) SR Soiling rate (%/day)
E-W East-west STC Standard test conditions
F Front T Total
GE Equivalent irradiance (W/m2) TA Ambient temperature (◦ C)
GF Front irradiance (W/m2) TMY Typical meteorological year
GPOA Plane of array irradiance (W/m2) UV Ultraviolet
GR Rear irradiance (W/m2) VMPP Voltage at maximum power point (V)
GHI Global horizontal irradiance (W/m2) VOC Open circuit voltage (V)
IEA International Energy Agency WP Rated Power (W)
I Current (A) WS Wind speed (m/s)
IMPP Current at maximum power point (A) β Module tilt (◦ )
ISC Short circuit current (A) βv Temperature coefficients for open circuit voltage (%/V)
ITRPV International technological roadmap for photovoltaics γm Module azimuth (◦ )
M Monofacial γp Temperature coefficients for maximum power (%/W)
N-S North-South ρg Ground albedo
O&M Operation and maintenance φ Bifaciality coefficient
PM Particulate matter

up to 20 % monthly losses with 30 % short term losses have been
recorded due to soiling in some studies (Sayyah et al., 2014). In case of
bifacial modules, dual side generation merits a detailed study of the
soiling losses for the individual sides of the module. The generally
applied vertical installation of bifacial PV assists in reduced soiling as
the level of dust accumulation reduces with increase of module tilt.
However, studies have shown that an optimally tilted orientation of a
bifacial module may further increase the gain from the module (Raina
et al., 2022a). Due to this, sufficient dust may get accumulated on the
surface of a bifacial module.
The accumulation of dust over the surface of a PV module is highly
specific to the local site, and is greatly influenced by the local
environment. Factors such as ambient temperature (TA), relative hu­
midity (RH), wind speed (WS), wind direction, precipitation and the
levels of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) present in the atmo­
sphere govern the dust accumulation density on PV module surface (Guo
et al., 2015; Javed et al., 2016; Javed et al., 2017). Aside from the
aforementioned factors, parameters such as module inclination, the dust
chemistry of the installation location, dew levels in arid and semi-arid
regions may also impact the soiling rates and the extent of chemical
bonding between pollutants and the two sides of a bifacial module
(Chanchangi et al., 2021; Mahnoor et al., 2021). Accumulation of dust
leads to spectral losses in PV modules, which vary with respect to the
density of soil. Fig. 2 shows the gradual buildup of dust on the surface of

Fig. 1. (a) Projected world market share of monofacial and bifacial cells in 2021–2032 (b) projected market share of bifacial cells along with use in 2021–2032
(International Technology Roadmap for PV, n.d.).

302
G. Raina and S. Sinha
Fig. 2. Gradual accumulation of dust accumulation on bifacial PV module (Raina et al., 2022b).
bifacial module as reported in (Raina et al., 2022b).
Limited studies have been conducting on assessing the losses asso­
ciated with soiling on the surface of bifacial modules. The period of most
studies has been between two to three months. A study conducted by
Cabrera et al. (Cabrera et al., 2016) investigated the influence of soiling
and abrasiveness through different module materials. The authors tested
full cell and half-cell modules and realized that higher PR was possible
using half-cell and full-cell modules under bifacial operation. The au­
thors further observed that by varying the module tilt from 90◦ to 30◦ ,
lower soiling losses were incurred. Another study conducted in Qatar
(Baloch et al., 2017) assessed the seasonal performance of bifacial
modules and made the observation that regular cleaning of the modules
improved the energy yield by 2.9 %. A methodology was proposed by
Luque et al. (Luque et al., 2018) wherein the soiling rates of the indi­
vidual sides of a bifacial module was determined after 60 days of
experiment. Furthermore, the authors conducted several simulations to
determine an effective cleaning strategy for the two sides of the module.
The study conducted by Bhaduri and Kottantharayil (2018) included
experiments conducted on two orientations of bifacial module and
summarized that vertical orientation would require less cleaning. The
authors also noted the lower module temperatures of vertically mounted
bifacial module.
Through meticulous research and development activities, numerous
soiling mitigation techniques have been introduced at industrial scale
namely manual cleaning, electrodynamic screens, robotic cleaning etc.
(Ehsan et al., 2021). A drawback of these techniques is that they have
proven to be expensive, and due to the use of such techniques, a majority
of the operation and maintenance costs (O&M) in a PV plant is directed
towards cleaning activities. A solution to these has been the develop­
ment of anti-soiling coatings (ASC), which seems like a feasible miti­
gation strategy (Chundi et al., 2021; Zeedan et al., 2021). Numerous
studies are being conducted to establish the feasibility of ASCs based on
factors such as effectiveness, durability, economic viability as these may
pose a major challenge for developers, especially for modules to be
installed in high humid conditions.
Bessa et al. (Bessa et al., 2021) reviewed the state of art in soiling
monitoring and mitigation and presented a summary of mitigation
strategies. The authors classified the strategies under natural cleaning
(rain, wind, snow, gravity, dew), artificial cleaning (mechanical, elec­
trodynamic screens and heating surfaces) and preventive actions which
could be undertaken to mitigate soiling. The preventive actions include
optimal configuration of the module and/or use of ASCs on the module
surface and optimizing the design of the module. In another study, Jones
et al. (Jones et al., 2021, June) tested the degradation of ASCs through
accelerated environmental exposure tests such as ultraviolet (UV)
exposure among other tests. The authors found that UV degradation was
303
Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313
a primary reason of damage of the ASCs, thus questioning the validity of
ASCs in outdoor conditions. Huang et al. (Huang et al., 2021) conducted
a study to determine the significance of different ASCs under different
air velocities and module tilt. Parameters such as dust deposition den­
sity, transmittance, PV efficiency were used to characterize the effec­
tiveness of the coatings. The results presented by Khan et al. (Khan et al.,
2022) show significant variation in the effectiveness of coatings in
outdoor exposure based on location and duration of exposure.
These studies indicate that although coatings to mitigate soiling are
being developed at a significant pace, their applicability and effective­
ness varies from location to location. Furthermore, use of two glasses in
a bifacial module warrants an extensive analysis of the need to use a
mitigation strategy for each glass, which can be done by determining the
individual soiling issues for each side of the module.
Motivation behind the study
Quantification of the impact of soiling on the performance of bifacial
modules is significant for universal acceptance and accelerated
deployment of this technology. The influence soiling has on the expenses
of designing and maintain a PV power plant has been studied for
different locations, climate and time of year (Costa et al., 2016;
Maghami et al., 2016; Sarver et al., 2013). Soiling is a problem whose
extent may drastically vary at a different site, however for each location
or technology, cleaning strategies remain more or less the same. Me­
chanical cleaning strategy is among the most common practice in in­
dustry followed closely by the fast-developing strategy of incorporating
ASCs on the module surface. However, in case of bifacial modules, two
aspects of the problem need to be considered before selecting any
strategy i.e., (i) the rate of dust accumulation in case of bifacial modules,
which may be dependent on the inclination of the module, and (ii) a
vertical installation might suffer from diminished dust accumulation
compared to tilted module.
While a vertical installation may prove beneficial, the additional side
to be cleaned in a bifacial module may increase the overall cost of
cleaning compared to a monofacial module. These factors make it vital
to quantify the rate of soiling for the individual sides of a bifacial
module. Such a study will assist the PV industry in determining specific
and cost-effective solutions to mitigate soiling on bifacial modules.
Furthermore, the importance of this study arises due to the varying
climate of different cities in India. While India is among the world’s
leading countries in solar PV deployment, it is also home to some of the
most populated and polluted cities globally. Such high levels of pollution
often lead to unwarranted losses in PV output leading to monetary los­
ses. As seen above, there is a lack of comprehensive studies where the
individual soiling rates and impact of module orientation on soiling rates
G. Raina and S. Sinha
has been extensively studied and therein lies the significance of this
particular study.
The manuscript is structured as follows; the methodology adopted
for the work detailing the site of study, its features and relations used to
determine the soiling rates has been presented in Section 2. The results
of the experiments have been meticulously explained through graphical
representation in Section 3 and the major findings have been system­
atically listed in Section 4 of the manuscript.
Methodology
In this section, the methodology adopted for conducting the research
work has been detailed by describing the site of study and the impor­
tance of site characteristics in governing the soiling losses. The experi­
mental setup used in the study and data analysis has been explained in
subsequent sub-sections.
Site description
The work has been conducted at the Centre for Energy and Envi­
ronment, MNIT Jaipur which is located at a latitude of 26.91 ◦ N in India
in the state of Rajasthan. A variety of climates ranging from hot in the
central parts to the country to tropical in the south and extreme cold in
the Himalayan north are experienced in India. A tropical country sur­
rounded by large water bodies; India is famous for its diverse climates.
Based on literature, the climate of India can be classified into six
different zones namely, hot and dry, hot and humid, moderate
(temperate), cold and cloudy, cold and sunny and composite zone
(Bhatnagar et al., 2019). The climate of the city of Jaipur falls under the
composite zone, however due to proximity to arid regions (desert)
coupled with moderate rainfall, Jaipur can also be classified under hot
and semi-arid climate (Tyagi et al., 2012).
Fig. 3 represents the ambient conditions prevalent in Jaipur
throughout a typical meteorological year (TMY) (Raina et al., 2022c).
The state of Rajasthan is among the states in India which receives the
highest radiation in a year, and is therefore suitable for greater instal­
lation of solar PV. However, the state is also subjected to high ambient
Fig. 3. Ambient weather conditions in Jaipur for a TMY (database: PVSyst).
304
Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313
temperatures as well as moderate to high wind speeds. Higher wind
velocities may lead to reduced dust accumulation; however, it may also
cause transportation of particulate matter like PM2.5 and subsequent
deposition on the surface of the PV module. The relation between levels
of humidity and dust accumulation is rather complex. During times of
high humidity, greater adhesion of dust may occur on the module sur­
face however condensation of water vapour at the same time may lead to
dew formation and cleaning effect. Another effect which may take place
at high humidity levels (>60 %) is the increased adhesion between the
particles and module surface which may increase the difficulty in
removal of particles by wind. The city of Jaipur is subjected to high
levels of humidity between the month of July and September, whereas
the humidity levels are lower during the rest of the year. Over the years,
rapid industrial growth and urbanization in larger cities like Jaipur has
led to an increase in the levels of air pollution. The data collected by the
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) shows that the air quality of
Jaipur over the last six years has shown a trend of moderate to poor
(https://cpcb.nic.in/, n.d.). Higher levels of air pollution signify high
levels of PM2.5 and PM10 concentration in the air which leads to soiling
issues for PV modules.
Experimental setup
The study was conducted using a pair of bifacial modules and two
monofacial modules (specifications given in Table 1). The study was
carried out for two orientations of the modules i.e., in the first phase for
45 days, the modules were installed at an optimally tilted orientation (β
= 40◦ , Em = 0.8 m and γm = 22.5◦ from south) determined in our pre­
vious work (Raina et al., 2022a). In the second phase, the modules were
installed at a vertical orientation (β = 90◦ E-W facing) for a period of 35
days, and the soiling metrics analysed to determine the soiling rates.
Fig. 4 shows the installation of modules at different orientations for
conduction of the proposed study.
Data for wind speed WS (m/s) and RH (%) for test site was retrieved
from https://cpcb.nic.in/, n.d.
As stated earlier, the experiment was conducted at two orientations,
as shown in Fig. 4, to understand the impact of tilt on soiling rates and
G. Raina and S. Sinha Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313

Table 1 manually and the data recorded for both the modules. The data for
(A) Specification of test bifacial PV module and (B) setup instruments. module power, front irradiance, rear irradiance and module tempera­
(A) (B) tures were recorded at a 1-minute interval. The front and rear global
a irradiance in the plane of array (GPOA) was measured with pyran­
Parameter Measure Instrument Specification
ometers. The ambient conditions, namely GPOA, TA, WS recorded during
WP 355 W Current sensor Holmium Technologies the period of study have been shown in Fig. 5.
0–20A (Hall Effect)
VMPP 37.9 V Voltage sensors Holmium Technologies
In this study, it is assumed that the reflected irradiance on the back of
0–50 V (Potential Divider) the modules is same and only dependent on the ground albedo. The
IMPP 9.37 A RTD sensors Pt100 losses depicted in further sections are only due to soiling and any loss
D = 3 mm, L = 20 m due to non-uniform irradiance on the rear of the modules is neglected.
− 50 ◦ C ~ 250 ◦ C
Furthermore, for better data representation, data filtering has been
VOC 46.4 V Pyranometer Sivara
Sensitivity 5–20 μV/W/m2 done. The days of heavy rain have been ruled out and data collection
Range 0–2000 W/m2 was done when the irradiance was above 300 W/m2, as performed in
a (Luque et al., 2018).
All data subject to STC and ρg = 0. (ρg = ground albedo).

soiling losses. In Fig. 4(a), the modules were installed at β = 40◦ while in
Fig. 4(b), modules installed in vertical orientation are shown. For
representative purposes, only one module is shown to be facing east,
however while conducting the study, both the modules were installed
facing east. Of the two modules used in the study, one module was
allowed to soil throughout the period of experiment and no cleaning
activity was carried out. The second module was cleaned regularly
Data analysis
Characterization of soiling in case of bifacial modules requires
distinction between the soiling on the two individual sides of the mod­
ule. Soiling ratio (RSo), soiling loss (SL) and rate of soiling (SR) are the
parameters based on which the extent of soiling on a PV module is
quantified. Using Eq. (1), the soiling ratio is calculated. Soiling ratio is

Fig. 4. Experimental setup (a) module installed at β = 40◦ and (b) modules installed at β = 90◦ facing east.

Fig. 5. Front irradiance (GF), rear irradiance (GR), equivalent plane of array irradiance (GE), ambient temperature (TA) and wind speed (WS) when module installed
at (a) β = 40◦ and (b) β = 90◦ .

305
G. Raina and S. Sinha Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313

defined as the ratio of power or current produced by the soiled module Bifacial gain
with respect to the clean module. Bifacial gain (BG) is defined as the gain in energy generation (kWh)
[ ( )] S ⎫ possible by using a bifacial PV module in place of a conventional
c sIsc
S 1 − βv TS − Tref
[ ( )
I ⎪
⎪
] cSC ⎪ monofacial module (Yusufoglu et al., 2014). Bifacial gain is one of the
⎪
⎪
c cIsc
C 1 − β v T c − T ref I SC
⎪
⎪
⎬ most commonly used metrics to analyse the performance of a bifacial
RSo = or (1) module under different conditions. A number of noteworthy research
c sPmax
[
1 − γ
(
T − T
)] S ⎪
P
⎪
⎪
⎪ articles have been published where the performance of a bifacial PV
) ] max ⎪
S ref
system is assessed using bifacial gain (Bouchakour et al., 2021; Kat­
S p
[ ( ⎪
⎪
c cPmax 1 − γ Tc − Tref Pc ⎭
C p max
saounis et al., 2019; Mühleisen et al., 2021; Park et al., 2019; Stein et al.,
In Eq. (1), ‘c_c’ and ‘c_s’ are the calibration constants for the clean 2017, June). In case of soiling, understanding the trend of bifacial gain
and soiled module respectively, and this ratio is determined by the from a soiled module would further assist in evaluating the suitability of
comparing the short circuit currents (ISC) of both the modules (Nepal a bifacial PV system in certain locations in place of the conventional
et al., 2018). Eq. (1) depicts the temperature corrected soiling ratio, and monofacial PV system. From Eq. (3), the soiling loss can be written as;
βv and γp denote the temperature coefficients for open circuit voltage / /
SFR = ΔSFL Δn and SRR = ΔSRL Δn (8)
(VOC) and maximum power (PMAX) respectively. Based on the soiling
ratio, the soiling losses can be determined. Soiling loss is the compliment The soiling loss SL can also be expressed in terms of the loss of
of soiling ratio, and is defined as the percentage loss in current (or irradiance absorbed by the soiled module, as loss in absorbed irradiance
power) from a module under soiled state (Eq. (2)). directly relates to the drop in current generated by a soiled module,
[ { [ ( )] S }] which gives Eq. (9);
c sIsc
S 1 − βv TS − Tref I [ / F,R ]
SL (%) = (1 − RSo ) × 100 = 1 − [ ( ) ] cSC × 100 SF,R F,R
(9)
c cIsc 1 − β T − T I L (%) = 1 − GS GC × 100
C v c ref SC

Front and rear soiling rates
Soiling rate for a PV module is defined as the ratio of soiling loss
incurred between day n1 and n2 w.r.t the number of days without any
cleaning activity. The soiling rate for a PV module can be determined
from the slope of the soiling loss curve. Using Eq. (3), the soiling rate can
be determined.
SnL1 − SnL2
SR = , where n1 and n2 = days of measurement
n1 − n2
Proper characterization of the soiling rates of individual sides of the
module needs to be done. A methodology presented by Luque et al.
(2018) has been adopted to determine the individual soiling rates and
has been further modified to determine the impact of soiling on bifacial
gain. The current generated by a bifacial module can be taken as the sum
of currents from individual sides, which gives Eq. (4).
(2) In Eq. (9), ‘GS, C’ denotes the irradiance absorbed by the soiled and
clean module respectively. Using Eq. (9), the unknown parameters GFS
and GRS can be calculated. The irradiance being absorbed by the clean
module is the plane of array irradiance being measured by the pyran­
ometers installed in the setup. The bifacial gain for the soiled and clean
module can then be determined using Eq. (10).
( / ) ( / )
BGS = φ GRS GFS and BGC = φ GRC GFC (10)
Results and discussion
(3)
The results of the study and their major significance have been
elaborated in this section. The soiling losses incurred by individual side
of a bifacial module are discussed along with the impact of environ­
mental conditions on respective side soiling rates. A comparison be­
tween soiling on bifacial modules installed in different orientations has
also been presented.

[( ) ] [( ) ] ITC
ITS = 1 − SFL IFC + 1 − SRL IRC , where IFC = and IRC = ρg φIFC (4)
1 + ρg φ Soiling ratio and soiling losses

In Eq. (4), ‘I’ denotes the current generated. The subscript ‘s’ and ‘c’ Using the methodology described in Section 2.3.1, the different
refers to the soiled and clean module respectively. The superscripts ‘F’ metrics to quantify the extent of soiling were determined and plotted.
and ‘R’ denote the front and rear side of the bifacial module respectively.
‘T’ denotes the total current generated by a bifacial module. Eq. (4) can
be re-written as;
[ T( ) ] [ T( ) ]
I 1 − SFL IC 1 − SRL ρg φ
ITS = C + (5)
1 + ρg φ 1 + ρg φ
[[( )] [( ) ]]
ITC 1 − SFL + 1 − SRL ρg φ
ITS = (6)
1 + ρg φ

From Eqs. (1), (3) and (6), the following equation can be realized.
[[( )] [( ) ]]
1 − SFR Δn + 1 − SRR Δn ρg φ
RSo = (7)
1 + ρg φ

From Eq. (7), the soiling rate of the rear of the bifacial module can be
determined. The parameter φ denotes the bifaciality factor of the
module used in this study (0.85). The soiling rate of the front surface, SFR
can be assumed to be equal to the soiling rate of the monofacial module.
Two monofacial modules have been used in this study, installed at
similar orientation as the bifacial module for the same time period, and
the normalized soiling losses and soiling rates calculated.
Fig. 6. Measured soiling ratio based on current (I) and power (P) loss.

306
G. Raina and S. Sinha
The soiling ratio calculated using Eq. (1) has been depicted in Fig. 6.
It can be seen from the figure, due to gradual accumulation of dust on
the module, a daily decrease of soiling ratio was observed. Gradual
accumulation of dust on the module leads to more area of the module
being covered, which in turn leads to irradiance losses and rise in
module temperature. An overall effect of this is observed in the power
losses between the soiled and clean module. Based on the soiling ratios,
the daily soiling losses incurred by the bifacial module, when optimally
inclined, have been represented in Fig. 7.
In Fig. 7, the measured soiling losses based on current and power loss
have been plotted for a bifacial module, along with the losses incurred
by a monofacial module under the same conditions. In the initial phase
of the experiment, one module was cleaned daily while the other was left
as it is. After a period of seven days, since no considerable trend was
being observed, the cleaning was conducted every seven days. The
figure shows a steep rise in the soiling loss occurred the day of cleaning,
with a gradual decline until the next cleaning activity. Day 4 and 5 were
discarded as heavy rainfall led to natural cleaning of both the modules.
Up to 12 % soiling losses were observed in the bifacial module due to
soiling at the end of the study period, while close to 14 % soiling losses
were observed in case of the monofacial module. Presence of an extra
side for irradiance absorption allowed lower soiling losses to be incurred
by the bifacial module.
Front and rear side soiling rates
The soiling rates for the individual side of the bifacial module are
determined using the methodology presented in Section 2.3.1, and
graphically represented in Fig. 8.
The monofacial module reported the highest soiling rate of 0.367
%/day (SM Bi
R ), while the soiling rate for the bifacial module (SR ), owing to
lower soiling losses, was observed to be 0.328 %/day. The graphs for
soiling rates follow a downward trend since with time, the soiling losses
incurred by a PV module will tend to reach a constant value. It should be
noted that while the soiling losses may become constant, the accumu­
lation of dust in the absence of cleaning will continue to happen. The
stagnation of soiling loss can be attributed to the entire area of the
module being covered with dust with negligible irradiance available for
absorption by the module. This phenomenon can be observed from
Fig. 7. Daily soiling losses in a bifacial PV module.
307
Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313
Fig. 9, where the gradual accumulation of dust is shown on different
days of study.
In case of bifacial module, determining the soiling on the rear side of
the module is critical since the installation of bifacial module currently is
dependent on its application. Through the conducted experiments, it
was observed that the rear side soiling rate (SrR) was 0.031 %/day, which
is extremely small compared to the more prevalent front side soiling.
The soiling rates for bifacial, monofacial and bifacial rear during
different days of the study have been tabulated in Table 2.
Effect of wind speed and relative humidity
Dust deposition on the surface of a PV module is highly dependent on
the specific site of installation and influenced by the local environment.
Among the prevailing ambient factors, wind speed and relative humidity
have a greater influence on the deposition of dust. The observed influ­
ence of wind speed (WS) and relative humidity (RH) is plotted in Fig. 10.
The daily soiling ratios were plotted against the daily average wind
speed and relative humidity, as seen in Fig. 10. For both the plots, the
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was determined. In case of wind
speed, a negative correlation between RSo and WS was observed with ‘r’
equal to − 0.52, while a positive correlation between RH and RSo equal to
0.503 was observed. This implies that at higher wind speeds, lower
soiling ratio was recorded because high velocity wind often is accom­
panied by the particulate matter present in the air which gets deposited
on the surface of the PV modules. Generally, significantly higher wind
speeds may lead to cleaning of the modules and lower dust accumula­
tion, however, it was observed that the average wind speeds were not
sufficient to remove the accumulated dust and rather caused deposition
of particulate matter accompanied with the incoming winds. The rela­
tion between the RH and RSo is more complex, as RH is dependent on WS
and ambient temperature. High levels of humidity can lead to two
phenomena, (i) high humidity causes greater adhesion of dust on the
module glass which may increase dust accumulation and (ii) high RH
levels may also lead to condensation on the accumulated dust leading to
dew formation and natural cleaning effect. This can be seen in the figure,
where at high RH levels, higher RSo is observed. RH is also dependent on
the ambient wind speeds. The humidity levels are a function of water
vapour present in the air. This was also observed in the data taken over
G. Raina and S. Sinha Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313

Fig. 8. Daily soiling rate for bifacial module, monofacial module and bifacial rear.

Fig. 9. Accumulation of dust with respect to time.

the period of the experiment for WS and RH, shown in Fig. 11, that high
wind speeds are accompanied by low levels of relative humidity which is
similar to trends observed in literature.
Since relative humidity is dependent on wind speed, a cumulative
impact of the both can be seen on the soiling of PV modules. This is
graphically represented in Fig. 12.
At higher wind speeds, low RH value is observed which leads to
lower RSo, while during days of low average wind speeds, the recorded
RH was higher leading to higher soiling ratios, as seen in Fig. 12. These
results show that wind speed is a highly critical factor is determining the
amount of dust accumulation on the surface of PV module. Another
crucial factor which impacts the dust accumulation, especially in case of

308
G. Raina and S. Sinha Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313

Table 2 blew from west to east. Since the modules were inclined at azimuth
Soiling rate for bifacial, monofacial and bifacial rear. angle (γm = 22.5◦ from south towards east), maximum dust deposition
Days Bifacial soiling rate Monofacial soiling rate Rear side soiling rate occurred on the front face of the bifacial module. It can also be observed
(SBi
R) (SM
R) (SrR) from the wind rose plot that during the study period, wind speeds were
(%/day) (%/day) (%/day) recorded mostly in the range of 1–1.5 m/s (~35 %), which was also
observed in the percentage frequency plots. Wind speeds in this range
7 0.155 0.491 0.050
18 0.390 0.417 0.018
allowed the soiling ratios to be maintained in the range 0.9–0.95, as is
23 0.356 0.462 0.015 shown in Figs. 6, 10 and 12. This goes to show that wind velocity and
30 0.215 0.314 0.011 relative humidity will act as most critical parameters in governing the
36 0.294 0.317 0.009 soiling losses in a bifacial PV module, especially in locations where dust
45 0.269 0.293 0.008
is more prevalent like arid and semi-arid regions of the country.

Soiling and bifacial gain

Soiling is an issue which plagues both monofacial and bifacial PV

Fig. 10. Soiling ratio with respect to wind speed (m/s) and relative humidity
(%) during the period of study.
modules, however the extra rear side absorption in case of bifacial
modules allows for greater power output and lower soiling losses to be
incurred by a bifacial module, as seen in the results in the previous
section. A common metric to analyse bifacial modules against mono­
facial is bifacial gain, which represents the gain available from a bifacial
module against a conventional monofacial module.
The different irradiances (GFS, GRS , GFC and GRC) along with the calcu­
lated BG for soiled (BGS) and clean (BGC) module is plotted in Fig. 14.
These values are calculated by the methodology presented in Section
2.3.2. An interesting observation can be made in Fig. 14, where the
average bifacial gain from clean module (BGCavg) is lower than the gain
from a soiled module (BGSavg). This is noteworthy since the power from a
clean module is greater than a soiled module. Such a deviation from
normality can be attributed to the fact that BG is governed by the irra­
diance absorbed by the two sides of a bifacial module. From Eq. (10), BG
for soiled depends on the irradiance absorbed by the front and rear side
of the module under soiled state, which is reduced due to soiling on the
module surface. Due to soiling, a reduction in GFS compared to GFC is
observed in Fig. 14, while the difference between GRS and GRC is negli­
gible. This implies that the variation in BG under soiling is governed by
the drop is irradiance absorption by the front side of the module by a
greater extent, and the rear side soiling is not sufficient to create any
deviations in the realizable BG. Two conclusions can be made from these
observations; (i) a bifacial module if installed in a location where higher
soiling rates are prevalent, will provide a significantly higher gain than a
monofacial module thus pointing towards its applicability and prove to
be more feasible, (ii) BG as a performance metric is a flawed one and the
results for BG should be scrutinized to assess the critical reason behind
the gain that is being claimed.

Optimally tilted vs east-west orientation: A comparative study of soiling

Soiling on PV modules, both monofacial and bifacial, is a function of

Fig. 11. Relative humidity vs wind speed.
a bifacial module, is the direction from which the wind is blowing. In
case of bifacial module, the direction of wind is important as it will
govern which side of the module is more susceptible to dust
accumulation.
It can be seen from Fig. 13 that during the study period, highest
percentage of wind was blowing from east-west, while minimal wind
the angle of installation of the module. Due to a higher tilt, less dust is
able to accumulate on the module. In case of monofacial modules, a
conventional orientation is followed for installation. However bifacial
modules have found use in applications where a vertical east-west (E-W)
orientation is more suitable as the rear side allows for peak to be
observed twice in a day. This phenomenon has been reported by Guo
et al. (Guo et al., 2013) where a global analysis shows higher energy
yield for vertical E-W oriented bifacial module. In this study, the mod­
ules were installed in a vertical orientation and left to soil. The calcu­
lated soiling losses have been represented in Fig. 15.
From Fig. 15 it can be seen that significantly low soiling losses were
recorded during the study period when the module was installed at β =
90◦ facing east. At the end of the period, maximum soiling losses of up to
3 % were observed for monofacial module, while up to 2 % soiling losses
were recorded for bifacial module. The soiling rates were calculated
similar to the procedure for an optimally tilted module, and are
graphically represented in Fig. 16.
The average daily soiling rates for bifacial module (SBi
R ), monofacial

309
G. Raina and S. Sinha Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313

Fig. 12. Cumulative impact of WS (m/s) and RH (%) on RSo for bifacial PV module.

Fig. 13. Wind rose and percent frequency of wind speed throughout study period.

module (SM r
R ) and bifacial rear (SR) when the module was installed at β =
90 were estimated to be 0.063 %/day, 0.082 %/day and 0.047 %/day
◦

respectively. The soiling rates at different days during the period of

Fig. 14. Bifacial gain for soiled and clean module along with irradiance on
front and rear side.
investigation have been tabulated in Table 3.
Since the soiling of modules installed at β = 90◦ was carried out for a
period of 35 days, a comparative analysis of the soiling losses and soiling
rates against optimally tilted modules has been conducted for the first
35 days of investigation period and the results have been plotted in
Fig. 17(a–d).
Fig. 17 shows that for a module installed at β = 90◦ , higher soiling
ratios and subsequently, significantly lower soiling losses were recorded
(Fig. 17(a) and (b)). This was due to limited accumulation of dust on the
module surfaces owing to vertical orientation, which did not allow the
dust to settle on the surface. The daily soiling rate for a vertically in­
clined east facing bifacial module was calculated to be 0.063 %/day,
against 0.350 %/day calculated for a tilted bifacial module. However,
the soiling rate for the rear of a bifacial module under vertical orienta­
tion (0.047 %/day) was almost similar to a tilted module (0.037 %/day).
The rear soiling rate in case of vertical orientation was higher due to
settling of dust on the lower part of the module rear, while this did not
happen when the module was tilted. These results signify the advantages
of installing a vertically inclined bifacial module for an application
where vertical orientation is necessary and, in a location, where high
dust accumulation is possible. However, in both cases, it is highly

310
G. Raina and S. Sinha Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313

Fig. 15. Daily soiling losses for bifacial module installed at β = 90◦ facing east.

be observed that higher percentage of wind was blowing from west to

east which led to greater soiling deposition on the module rear
compared to when the module was tilted optimally (β = 40◦ ). However,
from the wind rose and frequency plot, it can be observed that the
highest frequency of wind speed range was for WS = 1–1.5 m/s. Winds
ranging in this speed limit can be observed to flow at a larger frequency
percentage from east to west, thereby leading to greater soiling on the
module front.
The results show that dust deposition is highly dependent on the
environmental conditions wind speed and relative humidity, especially
in case of a bifacial module. Wind speed and direction will further
govern the impact of particulate matter concentration in the air on
overall soiling losses, which is significant considering India consists of a
number of highly polluted cities. Severe soiling may lead to over­
estimation of lifetime energy generation of PV plants and this aspect of
soiling should be critically examined.

Conclusion

A comprehensive study has been conducted to ascertain the soiling

on individual side of a bifacial module considering a wide range of
Fig. 16. Daily soiling rate for bifacial module, monofacial module and bifacial
scenarios. The factors affecting the soiling, such as wind speed, wind
rear when module installed at β = 90◦ facing east.
direction and relative humidity have also been considered and their
impact analysed. Furthermore, the impact of soiling on bifacial gain has
Table 3 been assessed. To study the impact of module installation conditions on
Soiling rate for bifacial, monofacial and bifacial rear at β = 90◦ facing east. soiling losses, a comparative analysis has been conducted and the soiling
losses and rates for module installed at β = 40◦ and β = 90◦ facing east
Days Bifacial soiling rate Monofacial soiling rate Rear side soiling rate
(SBi (SM (SrR) have been quantified. The following points highlight the major findings
R) R)
of the study:
(%/day) (%/day) (%/day)

7 0.059 0.158 0.054 • The soiling losses for tilted bifacial module were observed to be up to
14 0.045 0.057 0.028
12 % at the end of test period, less than those for a monofacial
21 0.085 0.107 0.019
28 0.071 0.094 0.014 module under similar conditions (~14 %) due to extra rear side
35 0.058 0.079 0.011 absorption.
• The average daily soiling rates for bifacial, monofacial module and
bifacial rear were determined to be 0.328 %/day, 0.367 %/day and
unlikely that the rear side will be subjected to significant soiling. 0.031 %/day respectively.
The effect of wind speeds and direction on soiling was also investi­
gated during the period of investigation (Fig. 18). From the figure it can

311
G. Raina and S. Sinha Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313

Fig. 17. Comparative results for soiling of bifacial module at β = 40◦ and β = 90◦ for (a) soiling ratio RSo (b) soiling loss (SL) (c) soiling rate (SR) and (d) rear soiling
rate (SrR).

Fig. 18. Wind rose and percent frequency of wind speed when β = 90◦ facing east.

• Bifacial gain for a clean module was observed to be ~12 % while for
a soiled module, higher bifacial gain equal to ~14 % was observed.
• A comparative investigation of tilted and vertically installed module
showed that lower soiling losses (~2 %) were recorded for a bifacial
module against 12 % of a tilted module.
• Significantly lower soiling rates (0.063 %/day) was reported for a
vertically installed bifacial module.
• Relatively higher soiling rate for module rear was observed in case of
vertically installed bifacial module (0.047 %/day) compared to tilted
module due to a cumulative effect of wind flow and dust accumu­
lation on the bottom of the module.

312
G. Raina and S. Sinha
In case of bifacial module, determining the soiling on the rear side of
the module is critical since the installation of bifacial module currently is
dependent on its application. The observed results show that signifi­
cantly low level of soiling occurs on the rear of the bifacial module. In
case of bifacial module, the direction of wind is important as it will
govern which side of the module is more susceptible to dust accumu­
lation. Such an observation is important since it pertains to deciding
whether both glasses in a bifacial module should be augmented with
anti-soiling coatings and whether mitigation strategies should be
developed for the rear side as well. The results signify the advantages of
installing a vertically inclined bifacial module for an application where
vertical orientation is necessary and, in a location, where high dust
accumulation is possible. However, in both cases, it is highly unlikely
that the rear side will be subjected to significant soiling. Global analysis
of soiling and subsequent losses to gain valuable information should be
conducted for bifacial modules, as a majority of operation and mainte­
nance costs in a PV plant is directed towards cleaning of modules.
Furthermore, optimum cleaning strategies should be designed and
developed for bifacial modules, as following standard procedures laid
down through research on monofacial modules may prove to be counter-
intuitive.
Declaration of competing interest
I hereby declare that.
(i) This paper has not been submitted for publication in any other
journal.
(ii) No conflict of interest between authors.
(iii) Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants
involved in the study.
(iv) This work has not been supported by any funding agency.
(v) This article does not contain any studies involving human/ani­
mals performed by any of the authors.
References
Baloch, A. A., Armoush, M., Hindi, B., Bousselham, A., & Tabet, N. (2017, June).
Performance assessment of stand alone bifacial solar panel under real time
conditions. In 2017 IEEE 44th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC) (pp.
1058–1060). IEEE.
Bessa, J. G., Micheli, L., Almonacid, F., & Fernández, E. F. (2021). Monitoring
photovoltaic soiling: assessment, challenges, and perspectives of current and
potential strategies. iScience, 24(3), Article 102165.
Bhaduri, S., & Kottantharayil, A. (2018). Mitigation of soiling by vertical mounting of
bifacial modules. IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, 9(1), 240–244.
Bhatnagar, M., Mathur, J., & Garg, V. (2019, September). Climate zone classification of
India using new base temperature. In Proceedings of the 16th IBPSA Conference Rome,
Italy (pp. 4841–4845).
Bouchakour, S., Valencia-Caballero, D., Luna, A., Roman, E., Boudjelthia, E. A. K., &
Rodríguez, P. (2021). Modelling and simulation of bifacial PV production using
monofacial electrical models. Energies, 14(14), 4224.
Cabrera, Enrique, Schneider, Andreas, Wefringhaus, Eckard, Rabanal, Jorge,
Ferrada, Pablo, Thaller, Diego, Araya, Francisco, et al. (2016). Advancements in the
development of “AtaMo”: A solar module adapted for the climate conditions of the
Atacama Desert in Chile-The impact of soiling and abrasion. In , vol. 10. Conference:
32nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (EU PVSEC).
Munich, Germany.
Chanchangi, Y. N., Ghosh, A., Sundaram, S., & Mallick, T. K. (2021). Angular
dependencies of soiling loss on photovoltaic performance in Nigeria. Solar Energy,
225, 108–121.
Chundi, N., Kesavan, G., Ramasamy, E., Mallick, S., Kottantharayil, A., & Sakthivel, S.
(2021). Ambient condition curable, highly weather stable anti-soiling coating for
photovoltaic application. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 230, Article 111203.
Costa, S. C., Diniz, A. S. A., & Kazmerski, L. L. (2016). Dust and soiling issues and impacts
relating to solar energy systems: Literature review update for 2012–2015. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 63, 33–61.
Ehsan, R. M., Simon, S. P., Sundareswaran, K., Kumar, K. A., & Sriharsha, T. (2021).
Effect of soiling on photovoltaic modules and its mitigation using hydrophobic
nanocoatings. IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, 11(3), 742–749.
Gostein, M., Caron, J. R., & Littmann, B. (2014, June). Measuring soiling losses at utility-
scale PV power plants. In 2014 IEEE 40th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC)
(pp. 0885–0890). IEEE.
Guo, S., Walsh, T. M., & Peters, M. (2013). Vertically mounted bifacial photovoltaic
modules: A global analysis. Energy, 61, 447–454.
313
Energy for Sustainable Development 72 (2023) 301–313
Guo, B., Javed, W., Figgis, B. W., & Mirza, T. (2015, March). Effect of dust and weather
conditions on photovoltaic performance in Doha, Qatar. In 2015 First Workshop on
Smart Grid and Renewable Energy (SGRE) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
Huang, Z. S., Shen, C., Fan, L., Ye, X., Shi, X., Li, H., Zhang, Y., Lai, Y., & Quan, Y. Y.
(2021). Experimental investigation of the anti-soiling performances of different
wettability of transparent coatings: Superhydrophilic, hydrophilic, hydrophobic and
superhydrophobic coatings. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 225, Article
111053.
Javed, W., Guo, B., Wubulikasimu, Y., & Figgis, B. W. (2016, October). Photovoltaic
performance degradation due to soiling and characterization of the accumulated
dust. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Power and Renewable Energy (ICPRE)
(pp. 580–584). IEEE.
Javed, W., Guo, B., & Figgis, B. (2017). Modeling of photovoltaic soiling loss as a
function of environmental variables. Solar Energy, 157, 397–407.
Jones, L. O., Bukhari, F., Critchlow, G., & Walls, J. M. (2021, June). Degradation of
hydrophobic anti-soiling coatings: Correlating indoor and outdoor testing. In 2021
IEEE 48th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC) (pp. 0912–0917). IEEE.
Katsaounis, T., Kotsovos, K., Gereige, I., Basaheeh, A., Abdullah, M., Khayat, A., Al-
Habshi, E., Al-Saggaf, A., & Tzavaras, A. E. (2019). Performance assessment of
bifacial c-Si PV modules through device simulations and outdoor measurements.
Renewable Energy, 143, 1285–1298.
Khan, M. Z., Ghaffar, A., Bahattab, M. A., Mirza, M., Lange, K., Abaalkheel, I. M. S.,
Alqahtani, M. H. M., Aldhuwaile, A. A. A., Alqahtani, S. H., Qasem, H., &
Naumann, V. (2022). Outdoor performance of anti-soiling coatings in various
climates of Saudi Arabia. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 235, Article 111470.
Kimber, A., Mitchell, L., Nogradi, S., & Wenger, H. (2006, May). The effect of soiling on
large grid-connected photovoltaic systems in California and the southwest region of
the United States. In , Vol. 2. 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy
Conference (pp. 2391–2395). IEEE.
Ledesma, J. R., Almeida, R. H., Martinez-Moreno, F., Rossa, C., Martín-Rueda, J.,
Narvarte, L., & Lorenzo, E. (2020). A simulation model of the irradiation and energy
yield of large bifacial photovoltaic plants. Solar Energy, 206, 522–538.
Luque, E. G., Antonanzas-Torres, F., & Escobar, R. (2018). Effect of soiling in bifacial PV
modules and cleaning schedule optimization. Energy Conversion and Management,
174, 615–625.
Maghami, M. R., Hizam, H., Gomes, C., Radzi, M. A., Rezadad, M. I., & Hajighorbani, S.
(2016). Power loss due to soiling on solar panel: A review. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 59, 1307–1316.
Mahnoor, B., Noman, M., Rehan, M. S., & Khan, A. D. (2021). Power loss due to soiling
on photovoltaic module with and without anti-soiling coating at different angle of
incidence. International Journal of Green Energy, 18(15), 1658–1666.
Mühleisen, W., Loeschnig, J., Feichtner, M., Burgers, A. R., Bende, E. E., Zamini, S.,
Yerasimou, Y., Kosel, J., Hirschl, C., & Georghiou, G. E. (2021). Energy yield
measurement of an elevated PV system on a white flat roof and a performance
comparison of monofacial and bifacial modules. Renewable Energy, 170, 613–619.
Nepal, P., Korevaar, M., Ziar, H., Isabella, O., & Zeman, M. (2018). Accurate soiling ratio
determination with incident angle modifier for PV modules. IEEE Journal of
Photovoltaics, 9(1), 295–301.
Park, H., Chang, S., Park, S., & Kim, W. K. (2019). Outdoor performance test of bifacial n-
type silicon photovoltaic modules. Sustainability, 11(22), 6234.
Raina, G., & Sinha, S. (2022). A comprehensive assessment of electrical performance and
mismatch losses in bifacial PV module under different front and rear side shading
scenarios. Energy Conversion and Management, 261, Article 115668.
Raina, G., Vijay, R., & Sinha, S. (2022). Study on the optimum orientation of bifacial
photovoltaic module. International Journal of Energy Research, 46(4), 4247–4266.
Raina, G., Sharma, S., & Sinha, S. (2022). Analyzing the impact of dust accumulation on
power generation and bifacial gain. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 58(5),
6529–6535.
Raina, G., Sinha, S., Saini, G., Sharma, S., Malik, P., & Thakur, N. S. (2022). Assessment
of photovoltaic power generation using fin augmented passive cooling technique for
different climates. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 52, Article
102095.
Rodríguez-Gallegos, C. D., Liu, H., Gandhi, O., Singh, J. P., Krishnamurthy, V.,
Kumar, A., Stein, J. S., Wang, S., Li, L., Reindl, T., & Peters, I. M. (2020). Global
techno-economic performance of bifacial and tracking photovoltaic systems. Joule, 4
(7), 1514–1541.
Sarver, T., Al-Qaraghuli, A., & Kazmerski, L. L. (2013). A comprehensive review of the
impact of dust on the use of solar energy: History, investigations, results, literature,
and mitigation approaches. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 22, 698–733.
Sayyah, A., Horenstein, M. N., & Mazumder, M. K. (2014). Energy yield loss caused by
dust deposition on photovoltaic panels. Solar Energy, 107, 576–604.
Stein, J. S., Riley, D., Lave, M., Hansen, C., Deline, C., & Toor, F. (2017, June). Outdoor
field performance from bifacial photovoltaic modules and systems. In 2017 IEEE 44th
Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC) (pp. 3184–3189). IEEE.
Tyagi, A., Singh, O. P., Singh, S. S., & Kumar, S. (2012). Climate of Jaipur. India: Indian
Meteorological Department.
Yusufoglu, U. A., Pletzer, T. M., Koduvelikulathu, L. J., Comparotto, C., Kopecek, R., &
Kurz, H. (2014). Analysis of the annual performance of bifacial modules and
optimization methods. IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, 5(1), 320–328.
Zeedan, A., Barakeh, A., Al-Fakhroo, K., Touati, F., & Gonzales, A. S., Jr. (2021).
Quantification of pv power and economic losses due to soiling in Qatar.
Sustainability, 13(6), 3364.
International Technology Roadmap for PV. Available online https://itrpv.vdma.org/
(last accessed 10-05-2022).
https://cpcb.nic.in/. https://cpcb.nic.in/ (last accessed 20-07-2022).