Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and

Environmental Effects

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

Improvement in the environmental, exergy,

energy, and economic performance of
hemicylindrical solar still integrated with a built in
active condenser: Experimental investigation

S.A. El-Agouz & Emad M.S. El-Said

To cite this article: S.A. El-Agouz & Emad M.S. El-Said (2023) Improvement in the
environmental, exergy, energy, and economic performance of hemicylindrical solar
still integrated with a built in active condenser: Experimental investigation, Energy
Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 45:2, 3338-3358, DOI:
10.1080/15567036.2023.2193155

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2023.2193155

Published online: 02 Apr 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 58

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueso20
ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
2023, VOL. 45, NO. 2, 3338–3358
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2023.2193155

Improvement in the environmental, exergy, energy, and economic

performance of hemicylindrical solar still integrated with a built in
active condenser: Experimental investigation
S.A. El-Agouza,b and Emad M.S. El-Said c

a
Mechanical Power Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt; bFaculty of
industry and energy, Samannod Technological University, Samannod, Egypt; cMechanical Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Damietta University, Damietta, Egypt

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this paper, an experimental study is performed to investigate the effect of Received 15 August 2022
utilizing an internal condenser (IC) on augmenting the performance of Revised 25 January 2023
a hemicylindrical type solar still (HSS). The proposed SS body is divided by Accepted 26 January 2023
a metal basin into two chambers; the upper chamber for evaporation and the KEYWORDS
bottom for condensation and located on the under of the basin absorber. Solar still; Internal
Salt water is heated by solar radiation and then evaporated. Some of the condenser; Exergoeconomic;
produced vapor is condensed on the surface transparent cover, while the rest Enviroeconomic;
is naturally circulated to the condensation chamber to be condensed there. Exergoenvironmental; and
Hence, the novelty in the current work is utilizing the IC with natural air exergoenviroeconomic
circulation in HSS instead of forced circulation and evaluate its effects on the
thermal, thermodynamic, economic, and environmental performance based
on energy, exergy, exergoeconomic (EXC), enviroeconomic (ENC), exergoen­
vironmental (EXE), and exergoenviroeconomic (EEC) parameters. For com­
parison, the traditional SS without an IC (HSS-C) is also tested. Depending on
energy, exergy, cost, EXC, EXE, and EEC, the modified HSS with an IC (HSS-M)
demonstrated outstanding performance. Comparing HSS-M to HSS-C, the
daily water yield is increased by roughly 99.9%, while costs have decreased
by 46.6%. Utilizing an IC increases the energy and exergy efficiency of HSS-C
by around 60.4 and 51.9%, respectively. Based on energy and exergy
approaches, the CO2 net emissions reduced annually for HSS-M by approxi­
mately 104.9%. The use of ICs has been successful in improving the energy,
efficiency, economic, and environmental performance of HSS.

Introduction
Due to the availability of solar energy of roughly 5–6 kWh/d, direct solar distillation may, in many
ways, be the right solution for the freshwater problem in several MENA nations (Kabeel and El-Said,
2013). The variability in water consumption is inextricably tied to the diurnal and seasonal variations
in solar distillation output. An energy source that is good to the environment is solar energy (Kabeel
and El-Said 2014). Because solar stills (SS) use simple technology and need nothing in the way of
design, manufacture, operation, or maintenance skills, they are a sustainable method of producing
freshwater. As a result, the SS continues to get significant scientific interest that aims to increase their
productivity and yield (El-Said, Elshamy, and Kabeel 2020) (Emran et al. 2022). A vertical distiller with
two revolving circular plates was studied by Essa et al. Additionally, they evaluated the performance of
modified single-stage and double-stage vertical distillers (MSSVD and MDSVD), and they contrasted
it with that of traditional tilting and vertical distillers (CTD) (CVD). According to their findings, the

CONTACT Emad M.S. El-Said emspeng@gmail.com Mechanical Power Engineering Department, Faculty of engineering,
Damietta University, Damietta, Egypt
© 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3339

energy efficiency for MSSVD and MDSVD was improved by about 350% and 617.4% more than CTD.
According to their economic analysis, MSSVD and MDSVD’s average production costs reduced by
about 33.33% and 29.63%, respectively, respect to CTD (Essa, Abou-Taleb, and Diab 2021). Sambare
et al. investigated three heat transfer enhancement arrangements on tubular SS for its performance
improvement. They found that the best water yield and exergy efficiency augmented by about 80.63%
and 85.2%, respectively. Also, their cost analysis showed that the proposed SS can produce freshwater
with 0.00511US $/L (Sambare et al. 2021).
Two major obstacles stand in the way of SSs’ improved performance. The first one is condensation
efficiency by increasing input energy. The input energy may be increases due to (1) angling the water
surface to receive the most solar radiation, (2) aligning the glass cover parallel to the water surface to
reduce losses by reflection, and (3) recovering the significant condensation energy loss from the SS duo
to the total energy gained by the condensation surface from evaporation, convection, and radiation.
Because the glass cannot be covered during the day, it cannot serve as both a condensing surface and
a door for solar energy entering the system. The second issue is improving condensation efficiency; to
do this, an extra condenser may be employed as an additional heat source and mass sink (Shoeibi et al.
2021). Asgari et al. presented a numerical and experimental study to investigate the transient energy
performance of a humidification-dehumidification SS utilizing a subsurface condenser. Their results
showed an insignificant improvement in the SS’s productivity with more economical benefits (Asgari,
Hakkaki-Fard, and Hannani 2023). Amiri studied an SSS with a built-in passive condenser. His results
indicated that the productivity of the modified SSS enhanced by about 30% to 150% higher than that of
the traditional stepped SS with about 36% increment in the energy efficiency. He found that the cost of
water of the modified SSS reduced by about 36% compared to traditional SSS (Amiri 2022). To study
the effect of an external condenser on the functionality of the SSS, Toosi et al. studied four systems:
single-step SS, stepped SS with an external condenser, stepped SS with PCM, and stepped SS with an
external condenser and PCM. They found that the efficiency of a single-step SS with an external
condenser was increased by 26% (Toosi, Goshayeshi, and Heris 2021). A double slope SS with an
external copper condenser (ECC) was studied by Nehar et al. They indicated that SS with ECC has
a productivity and overall efficiency boost of 0.66 L/m2 and a 7.52% cost compared to traditional SS
(Nehar et al. 2022). A single-slope SS with an external condenser (EC) was researched by Rahmani
et al. They demonstrated that the EC has a favorable impact on SS productivity in moderate weather,
when it can increase SS productivity by 16.5 to 29%. Their findings also revealed an improvement in
energy and exergy efficiency of roughly 27.12% and 26.32%, respectively (Rahmani, Khemmar, and
Saadi 2021). Emran et al. studied a triangle SS with an interior separated condenser and an external
PVC pipe solar heater. According to their findings, active SS had a yield that was 24% higher than
passive SS. Additionally, they discovered that the expected and fair cost of desalinated water per liter
(Emran et al. 2022). Kabeel, and El-Said studied an SS coupled with humidification-dehumidification
technology (SS-HDH) with an external condensation unit. Their findings presented that the highest
daily yield was about 18.25 L/m2 day with an energy efficiency 39%. They found that the water cost of
0.0081 US $/L (Kabeel and El-Said 2018).
Due to the increased emissions of air pollutants, including CO2 and nitric oxide, environmen­
tally friendly energy technologies must be developed (Tsatsaronis 2011). To evaluate and enhance­
ment at any system from the viewpoints of thermodynamics, economics, and environmental
implications, it is necessary to better describe and comprehend the key thermodynamic losses
and the causes that lead to them. There are a number of measures that might be taken to enhance
the thermodynamics performance, cost benefits, and ecological effects of the system under review
in addition to equipment prices and thermodynamic inefficiencies. These processes can be carried
out utilizing EXC and EEC evaluation. As a result, the EEC investigation and assessment are
conducted quite differently from the EXC ones. EXC is regarded as an examination and evaluation
of economic and energy-related concerns (Abdelaziz et al. 2021). Based on experimental, exergo-
economic, and exergo-environment research, Mevada et al. evaluated a modified SS with a zig-zag
form air-cooled condenser. Their findings indicated that the projected SS’s yield has increased by
3340 S. A. EL-AGOUZ AND E. M. EL-SAID

almost 73.5% with 13.33% decrease in the cost of production (Mevada, Panchal, and Sadasivuni
2021). Exergo-economic and exergo-environmental analysis for MSS demonstrates that the mod­
ified system was extremely advantageous from an economic standpoint and resulted in the
generation of less carbon value by reducing carbon dioxide levels. Experimental research on the
use of several passive condenser designs for the solar distiller based on productivity, exergy,
energy, energyeconomics, exergyeconomics, and enviroeconomics was conducted by Abo-Elfadl
et al. In comparison to SS with glass plate condenser, they claimed that the SS with an aluminum
heat sink condenser pin fin on its outer surface condenser had the highest production with an
increase of 54% (Abo-Elfadl, Yousef, and Hassan 2021).
According to the literature assessment, the forced circulation, which necessitates a fan, is the
principal disadvantage of most condensation systems suggested for SS. The performance of the SS is
not significantly impacted by the declining flow rate of the circulating air. Hence, the air flow rate
could potentially be driven by natural circulation. Since there is no need for a circulating fan, there are
less technical complications and lower capital and operating costs, making natural air circulation with
a tiny SS preferable. The goal of the current study is to use natural air circulation to improve the SS’s
performance metrics. To examine how a naturally circulated humidifying/dehumidifying SS utilizing
a passive condenser performed under various climatic, design, and operational factors. Therefore, the
novel aspects of the current study are: (i) study experimentally the utilization of the IC with HSS, (ii)
comparing the proposed system with the conventional design and natural circulation at different
operational and design parameters. The proposed system was built and put through testing to meet the
following objectives:

● Evaluating the modified HSS performance with various water heights and weather conditions,
including solar intensity, ambient temperature, and inlet cooling temperature.
● Justifying the capital and operating costs of the proposed HSS, as well as the additional technical
complexities, in comparison to a conventional SS design based on energy, exergy, economic,
environmental, EXE, and ENC and yield,
● Assessment the proposed system reliability.

Experimental work
Solar still
As shown in Figure 1, the proposed system consists of the water basin, condensing cycle. A wooden
box with 135 × 95 × 24 cm3 dimensions is the base of the still that hold other parts all together.
A transparent cover made of fiber glass sheet, which bent parabolically to fit in the wooden box as
it permits the sun rays go into the still and to the cover the surface of the wooden box. The front and
rear ends of the fiberglass are shut by two metal parabolic-shaped sheets, one of these sheets has a vent
to handle the inner parts during operation. A black-painted absorber with 115 × 75 × 10 cm3 dimen­
sions is represented by a metal basin set in the wooden box and it contains the salty water and absorbs
the heat of the sun to vaporize the salty water. The HSS is divided into upper (basin to transparent
cover) and lower (basin to condenser) chambers by the basin. The upper chamber, where the air is
heated and humidified, and the bottom chamber is connected via a pipe (where it is cooled and
dehumidified for water production). Air is naturally circulated between the chambers through two
slits at the two sides of the basin assembly. The condensing cycle consists of two PVC tubes 70 cm
length and 20 mm internal diameter as headers and connects between their five aluminum tubes 70 cm
with length and 110 mm and 7 mm internal diameter to pass the cooling water of the cycle as shown in
Figure 2. The other parts of the cooling cycle are outside the still, and the parts are two rubber tubes
attached to the two headers. These rubber tubes connect a pump inlet and outlet to create a flow rate to
reduce the temperature and humidity inside the still. A salty water tank is set to make up the
evaporated water from the still, and it is located above the still and fitted into the tank holder. It is
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3341

Transparent
cover

chamber
Humid air

Upper
Basin

chamber
Lower
Dehumid air Condenser coil
(a) Schematic

(b) Photograph
Figure 1. Proposed system. (a) Schematic. (b) Photograph.

PVC tube

Aluminum tube

(a) (b)
Figure 2. (a) water trough; (b) Schematic sketch of the condensing coil.

connected to the still by a rubber tube entering the still through a well-sealed port above the vent. The
distillate water is formed in the bottom of the wooden basin and comes out as a distillate from a port in
the wooden basin bottom of the distillate water tank.

Instrumentation devices
Five temperature sensors were utilized to measure the temperatures of the cooling water in the trough,
ambient, intake, and outflow. To measure the typical water temperature, two temperature probs are
placed in the basin. Two temperature sensors were utilized to gauge the temperature of the transparent
cover. A single temperature sensor and a Hall-effect water flow sensor were utilized to detect the
cooling water temperature and flow rate in turn, respectively. A digital salinity meter is utilized to
know the water salinity. The air speed is measured by the portable Davm+ vane anemometer. The total
sun irradiation was calculated utilizing a solar power meter. Every hour, product water was manually
3342 S. A. EL-AGOUZ AND E. M. EL-SAID

Table 1. Technical specifications of sensors and probes.

Device Manufactured Type Accuracy
Digital thermometer (TM-82N) Tenmars Temperature ±0.05%
YF-S201 Sea Flow sensor ±2%
Calibrated flask (0–2000 ml) Local Productivity ±0.88%
Digital salinity meter (TDS-3) HM Salinity ±2%
Digital air flow meter (Davm +) Supco Wind speed ±3%
Solar power meter (TM-206) Tenmars Solar radiation ±5%

measured utilizing a level indicator mounted on a freshwater tank with a constant cross-sectional area.
Before use, all sensors were calibrated to determine the sensitivity of the probes. Table 1 lists the
specifications of the measurement tools utilized in the experiment.

Operational procedures
The studied system was designed, manufactured, and tested in real condition settings. In this
investigation, the feeding water is brackish water with fixed salinity 3000 ppm (Lior 2012). The cooling
water flow rate is fixed at 0.08 L/s. The trough has a WH between 8 and 16 mm, and the cooling water
inflow is adjusted based on the weather. The stages involved in the operation were as follows: (1)
charging salty water into the water trough till the required WH, (2) operating the condensing cycle
pump, and (3) collecting the freshwater in the calibrated flask. Other measured and operational
variables, including the condensate freshwater amount, were gathered.

Uncertainty analysis
The uncertainty in the experimental results was assessed utilizing the approach by (Holman and
Gajda) and based on the instrument accuracies displayed in Table 1.
y ¼ f ðx1 ; x2 ; x3 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . :; xn Þ
The uncertainty in the result is calculated as follows:
"� �2 � �2 � �2 #1=2
@y @y @y
uy ¼ u1 þ u2 þ u3 . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
@x1 @x2 @x3

Where uy is the uncertainty in the result and u1, u2, . . . . are the uncertainties in the independent
variables x1, x2, . . .. . .. The uncertainty values are listed in Table 2.

Analysis of the performance parameters

In this section, the energy, exergy, economic, and environmental analysis has been utilized to
assessment the HSS performance.

Table 2. Uncertainties of measured

variables.
Parameter Value
Water flow rate ±0.24
Water temperature ±0.44
Air temperature ±0.44
Efficiency ±7. 8
Yield ±0.57%
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3343

Energy efficiency
_ dis ) from hourly yield
The following formula can be utilized to calculate daily water productivity (M
_
(Mdis ) utilizing a specific operating time (OT):
Xi¼OT
M_ dis ¼ _ dis
m (2)
i¼1

As stated in (Kabeel, Abdelaziz, and El-Said 2019), the hourly and average daily energy
efficiencies are:
_ dis Abs � Is � 3600
ηen;H ¼ λfg;w � ½rgb�1:0; 0:0; 0:0m (3)

_ dis
λfg;w � M
ηen;D ¼ Pi¼OT (4)
Abs � i¼1 Is � 3600

As stated in (Kabeel, Abdelgaied, and El-Said 2017), λfg;w is the latent heat of water vaporization in
(J/kg) and calculated based on the basin water temperature (Tw,bs) in °C as follows:
� � �
λfg ¼ 25 � 105 0:2369 ��104 � Tw þ ð0:2678 � Tw Þ 0:8103 � 10 2 � Tw
0:2079 � 10 4 � Tw (5)

Exergy efficiency
In accordance with the first thermodynamics-energy analysis law, procedures for converting and
utilizing energy are evaluated. Exergy analysis has so become widely utilized to improve knowl­
edge of the utilization processes. The second law of thermodynamics can be utilized to develop an
analysis of exertion. Based on (Petela 2003), the entire exergy balance for HSS is represented as
follows.
X X X
E_ x;in E_ x;out ¼ E_ x;dest (6)

Or,
�
E_ x;sun E_ x;evap þ E_ x;work ¼ E_ x;dest (7)

where the input exergy to the HSS is the solar radiation exergy and work rate exergy is neglected. So, it
can be estimated as (Tiwari and Sahota 2017):
" � � � �4 #
_Ex;in ¼ E_ x;sun ¼ Abs It 1 4 Tam þ 273 þ 1 Tam þ 273 (8)
3 Tsky 3 Tsky

� � ��
λ Tam þ 273
_Ex;evap ¼ dis fg;w 1 (9)
3600 Tw;bs þ 273

The HSS exergy efficiency is estimated as (Petela 2003):

Exergy output of HSS E_ x;evap E_ x;dest

ηex ¼ ¼ ¼1 (10)
Exergy input to HSS E_ x;in E_ x;in

The proposed system operation is behaving in a quasi-steady-state manner, i.e. the variables, while
varying from hour to hour, are considered constant during every hour of analysis, and the unsteady
terms related to the above equations are neglected.
3344 S. A. EL-AGOUZ AND E. M. EL-SAID

Energy analysis
Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy production factor (EPF), which are stated as (Tiwari and
Sahota 2017), are utilized in this study to comprise the determination of energy obtained from the
system through LT is less than the energy utilized manufacturing.

Energy payback time. The amount of time needed to produce as much energy as is utilized during LT
operation, or the embodied energy of the HSS parts (Embodied energy is the total energy required for
the extraction, processing, manufacture, and delivery of part materials) based on the embodied energy
per mass unit from (Tiwari and Sahota 2017), is known as the energy payback time (EPBT). The mass
of each component of the HSS is multiplied by their energy density, as shown in Table 3, to determine
Ein. Based on energy streams and exergy streams, EPBT can be evaluated as follows (Abdelaziz et al.
2021):
Ein
EPBTen ¼ (11)
Een;out

Ein
EPBTex ¼ (12)
Eex;out
Een,out and Eex,out represent the total annual energy and exergy outputs.

Energy production factor. The total performance of the HSS is assessed utilizing the energy produc­
tion factor (EPF). It is described as the proportion between energy input and output. It also functions
as EPBT’s opposite. According to EPFen and EPFex, EPF can be computed as follows (Abdelaziz et al.
2021):
Een;out
EPFen ¼ (13)
Ein

Eex;out
EPFex ¼ (14)
Ein

Economic analysis
This economic study is performed to ascertain the cost of distillate freshwater considering fixed
expenses, operation costs, maintenance costs, and energy cost according to the following assumptions:

● Salvage value is zero (Jaluria, 2007).

● Capital costs (CC) includes the construction, technical works, and commissioning.
● Operation and maintenance cost (OMC) is 20% of the system’s annual payment (Kabeel, Abou-
Elmaaty, and El-Said 2013).

Table 3. Embodied energy of different components.

Component Materials Mass (kg) Embodied energy per mass unit (MJ/kg) Embodied energy (kW.hr)
Box Plywood 10 10.1 28.06
Frame Steel 7 10.4 20.22
Feed tank Steel 5 10.4 14.44
Transparent cover Polypropylene 5 64 88.89
Basin Copper 6 70.6 117.67
Condenser PVC 4 70 77.78
Basin painting Black paint 0.7 90.4 17.58
Insulation Fiberglass 3 30.3 25.25
Total embodied energy (kW.hr) 389.89
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3345

Table 4. Cost items of HSS.

Item Price (US $)
Iron structure 23
Wooden box 10
Trough 13
Transparent cover 10
Fresh water tank 7
Feed tank 16
Condenser 15
Pump 15
Insulation material 9
Installation and testing 12
Total capital cost 130

● The interest rate (i) was assumed to be about 15% (El-Said et al. 2021).
● The HSS lifetime (n) is 30 years (El-Said, Kabeel, and Abdulaziz 2016).
● The available annual operation days (Nod) are 340 (El-Said and Abdelaziz 2020).

Table 4 shows the details of components’ capital costs (CC), which is worth 130 US $. The total costs
(TC) can be calculated as follows:
TC ¼ OMC þ FEC (15)
Where FEC is fixed charges. Based on the estimated 2022 price per kW.h in Egypt, which is around
0.02 $, and the estimated 360 W.h of consumed energy, the cost of the electric power may be
calculated.
The following is how FEC is calculated based on the amortization factor (FA) and capital
cost (CPC):
FEC ¼ AF � CC (16)

ið1 þ iÞn
FA ¼ (17)
ð1 þ iÞn 1
Hence, in order to calculate the product water cost (PC), use the formula below (El-Dessouky and
Ettouney 2002):
TC
PC ¼ P (18)
n � Nod � i¼OT _w
i¼1 m

Energoeconomic and exergoeconomic analyses

In order to increase the exergy gain, the EXC parameter (Rex) is calculated in this section depending on
the system’s gained exergy. Rex can be estimated utilizing HSS’s exergy method as follows (Yousef and
Hassan 2019):
Eex;out
Rg;ex ¼ (19)
TC

Environmental analysis
This section uses environmental analysis to evaluate various environmental viewpoints. This strategy
is dependent on the reduction in carbon dioxide caused by the HSS. The quantity of carbon dioxide
that can be released from the HSS is calculated utilizing this approach. Due to the fabrication of SS
components utilizing conventional energy produced from fossil fuel resources, a significant number of
pollutants are released into the environment and pose a threat to the ecosystem (Tsatsaronis 2011).
3346 S. A. EL-AGOUZ AND E. M. EL-SAID

Carbon dioxide emissions. The following formula is utilized to determine the carbon dioxide emis­
sion through the system age (LCE) of the HSS (kg) based on the average carbon dioxide for power
produced by fossil fuels (Tsatsaronis 2011):
LCE ¼ Ein � ψCO2 (20)
The SS annual CO2 emission (ACE) can be determined as follows:
Ein � ψCO2
ACE ¼ (21)
n
where ψCO2 is the typical carbon dioxide emission (2 kg CO2/kWh) when producing electricity from
fossil fuels like coal (Tsatsaronis 2011).

Carbon dioxide mitigation. One way to express the HSS annual carbon dioxide mitigation (ACM)
(kg of CO2) based on the annual gained energy from the HSS (Een,out) is as follows (Tsatsaronis 2011):
ACM ¼ Een;out � ψCO2 (22)
Therefore, carbon dioxide reduction utilizing the LT (LCM) of the HSS (kg)
LCM ¼ Een;out � n � ψCO2 (23)
Then, taking into account the energy values stated below (Tsatsaronis 2011), the environmental
parameter or the net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through the LT (NLCM) of the SS is as
follows:
� � �
Een;out � n Ein � ψCO2
NLCMen ¼ (24)
1000

Enviroeconomic analysis
Environmental, economic (ENC) analysis calculates the amount of carbon earned on account of the
amount of carbon dioxide being reduced via the LT of the SS.
Following is a way to calculate carbon credit earned (CCEen) based on the international carbon
price (ICP), which is around $14.5 per ton of carbon dioxide (Tsatsaronis 2011):
CCEen ¼ NLCMen � ICP (25)

Exergoenvironmental analysis
The net reduction in CO2 over the LT of the HSS after accounting for exergetic values is known as the
EXE parameter (NLCMex) and can be established based on the annual exergy output (Eex,out) as follows
(Tsatsaronis 2011).:
� � �
Eex;out � n Ein � ψCO2
NLCMex ¼ (26)
1000

Exergoenviroeconomic (EEC) analysis

Exergoenviroeconomic (EEC) analysis is a method for estimating the cost of reduced CO2
emissions while also taking into account the exergetic features of the HSS. The carbon credit
earned (CCEex) or the EEC parameter can be calculated as follows (Tsatsaronis 2011) to analyze
the EEC:
CCEex ¼ NLCMex � ICP (27)
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3347

Results and discussions

Ten experiments were conducted between June 24, 2018, and July 10, 2018, as presented in Table 5.
Utilizing experimental data of solar intensity, water temperature, ambient temperature, and yield,
energy, exergy, environmental performances were investigated. Internal condensation, water height
(WH) in the trough (8 and 16 mm), and weather factors including solar intensity, ambient tempera­
ture, and inlet cooling temperature were tested and discussed.

Solar still temperatures

For all test situations and operation conditions, the temperature changes of the HSS are shown in
Figure 3 The measured Tam and Is are illustrated as shown in Figure 3a. This figure also presents the
wind speed variation over running time; at higher wind speed the convective heat transfer from the
transparent cover to atmosphere increases due to increase in convective heat transfer coefficient
between cover and atmosphere. This effect let to increase in the condensing and evaporation rate
and productivity of the SS. Figure 3a and b show Tg, Tw, and Tcw as a function of running time for all
test cases; with and without condenser.
As can be seen, all temperatures and solar radiation measure increase as time goes on, peaking
between 13:00 and 14:00 clock, then steadily declining till sunset. This graph demonstrates that, at the
maximum owing to water thermal capacity, the temperature of the salty water was reached after 60-
min shifts. Additionally, it is demonstrated that, for all operational day, the water temperature is low
during the middle of the day and high after sunset. This might be as a result of the salty water’s large
mass and volume storing more energy before sunset. After sunset, this heat energy behaves as
a sensible heat storage (SHS), allowing for water evaporating during the night. As shown in
Figure 3b, the maximum trough water temperature reached 62.9°C for HSS-M. This figure also
shows that the maximum glass temperature reached 67.6 °C for HSS-M. In general, if we review the
water temperatures for both operating conditions; HSS-C and HSS-M, we will find that the almost of
glass cover temperatures for HSS-M were lower than for HSS-C. This decreasing in glass cover
temperature in HSS-M may be due to the part of thermal solar energy which transferred to the
cooling water in condensation unit. As presented in Figure 3a, the cooling water inlet and outlet affect
the solar intensity over the day. So, the difference between them varied during the operation time and
reach the lowest value with highest intensity of solar radiation. This is due to the increasing the
thermal heat load inside the HSS cavity, which increase the inlet and outlet cooling water temperature
at the same time.

Freshwater yield
Water productivity fluctuation with running time with the different operating HSS operating
conditions is shown in Figure 4. The instantaneous water yields increase from 08:00 clock to
the peak 13:00 clock, as shown in Figure 4a. When test day comes to an end, they start to decline.

Table 5. The operating and design conditions of test cases.

Date WH, Hw mm Condensation Abbreviation
24-06-2018 16 Without condenser HSS-C-16
25-06-2018 16 With condenser HSS-M-1-16
27-06-2018 16 With condenser HSS-M-2-16
30-06-2018 16 With condenser HSS-M-3-16
02-07-2018 16 With condenser HSS-M-4-16
07-07-2018 8 Without condenser HSS-C-8
04-07-2018 8 With condenser HSS-M-1-8
05-07-2018 8 With condenser HSS-M-2-8
09-07-2018 8 With condenser HSS-M-3-8
10-07-2018 8 With condenser HSS-M-4-8
3348 S. A. EL-AGOUZ AND E. M. EL-SAID

Figure 3. (a) Solar intensity, wind speed and ambient temperature, (b) Glass and salty water temperatures, (c) Inlet and outlet cooling
water temperature with operating day time in various operating conditions.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3349

The rate of evaporation and water productivity were discovered to be influenced by the solar
intensity at sunrise and the heat taken from SHS (salty water), which maintains the freshwater
production during the time when the solar intensity declines, which is after 13:00 clock. This
figure also shows how the solar energy gain, as determined by the sun intensity on each test day,
affects the HSS’s yield. As a result, among the instances represented in Figure 4a, the productivity
of case HSS-C-16 recorded the lowest value with a low solar energy level. Additionally, Figure 4b
and c present a comparison of the accumulated yield per day for the two HSS operating conditions
on various days. In this figure, the daily water productivity for HSS-M is larger than in HSS-C
with different operating days for all tested cases with the same WH during the running duration.
As shown, the yield increases with the WH reduction. This is because the low water volume
receives a greater influence of heat absorption and transmission when there is an 8 mm WH than
when there is a 16 mm WH. For 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively, the HSS-M records the best
total daily water productivity at 5.57 L and 3.13 L or 6.46 L/m2 and 3.63 L/m2, respectively, with
improvements of roughly 24.96% and 99.87%.

24-06-2018
25-06-2018
27-06-2018
30-06-2018
02-07-2018
04-07-2018
05-07-2018
Yield, ( mL)

07-07-2018
Yield, ( mL)

09-07-2018
10-07-2018

24-06-2018 04-07-2018
25-06-2018 05-07-2018
27-06-2018 07-07-2018
30-06-2018 09-07-2018
02-07-2018 10-07-2018
08:00

09:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

08:00

09:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00
14:00

15:00

16:00

14:00

15:00

16:00
17:00

17:00

Time (hr) Time (hr)

(a) (b)
HSS-C @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-2@ Hw = 8 mm
Accumulated yield, (mL)

HSS-M-3@ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-C @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-2 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-3 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 16 mm
(c)
Figure 4. (a) Hourly yield (b) Accumulative yield variations with operating time (c) Daily yield.
3350 S. A. EL-AGOUZ AND E. M. EL-SAID

Energetic and exergetic performance

Presents the energy and exergy daily outputs in (kWh/day). Figure 5a presents the maximum energy outputs
(daily) for HSS-C and HSS-M are 3.16 and 3.95 kWh/day, for 8 mm WH and 1.78 and 3.95 kWh/day, for 16
mm WH, respectively. These results showed that HSS-M has a high energy output compared to HSS-M for
different test days. This is due to the fact that, as was previously said, among all HSS-C test cases, the HSS-M
yields the highest results. The highest daily exergy outputs for HSS-C and HSS-M are 0.204 and 0.225 kWh/
day for 8 mm WH and 0.115 and 0.216 kWh/day, respectively, for 16 mm WH, as shown in Figure 5b. These
findings also demonstrate that the exergy output of the HSS-M is greater than the exergy output of the HSS-
C. These findings are connected to notable increases in HSS-M water temperatures and, as a result, to higher
exergy rates of evaporation than in HSS-C situations.
Figure 6a and b show a comparison of the average energy and exergy efficiency for HSS-C and HSS-M
with two WHs (8 and 16 mm) and several test days. These figures are intended to demonstrate the
improvement in HSS-C energy and exergy efficiency brought about utilizing IC. The use of the IC increases
energy efficiency, as seen in Figure 6a. Additionally, this graph shows that energy efficiency rises as WH
decrements. At 8 mm WH, the highest energy efficiency of HSS-C and HSS-M is 50.21.87% and 58.90%,
respectively, while at 16 mm WH, it is 32.96% and 52.86%. The figure also demonstrates that the energy
efficiency of HSS-C is increased by approximately 17.31% for 8 mm WH and 60.37% for 16 mm WH,
respectively. The impact of utilizing an IC on energy efficiency is depicted in Figure 6b. According to this
figure, the average energy efficiency rises as the WH decrements. HSS-C and HSS-M have maximum exergy
efficiencies of 3.48 and 3.65% for 8 mm WH and 2.27 and 3.45% for 16 mm WH, respectively. Additionally,
this graph demonstrates that for 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively, the exergy efficiency of HSS-C is
increased by approximately 4.88% and 51.88%.
Thus, for all test cases, the HSS-M results in the highest increase in energy and exergy efficiency.
This means that the proposed modification will result in a significant improvement in the energy and
exergy efficiency of the HSS even when the main operating variables such as WH remains constant.
The following three basic explanations for this are provided:

(1) Natural circulation airflow rate: the balance between driving and opposing forces determines
the naturally generated air mass flow (pressures). The driving force is determined by: (a) the
difference in average air density between the humidification and dehumidification channels
(which changes with air temperature and humidity), and (b) the resisting force is determined
by circuit resistance and flow velocity.
(2) Decreasing the lost in non-condensing water vapor; the presence of IC inside the HSS cavity
can make high condensation rate more than the conventional design.
(3) Increasing the thermal energy gain; the condensation process occurred on IC reduces the condensa­
tion load on the transparent cover (which is considered the main condenser in conventional design).
This decreases the formation of condensate water droplets on the transparent cover, which increases
and enhances the transmissibility of solar radiation to the basin absorber and decrease its scattering
due to water lens (it will act as a concave lens that bends the solar beams outward).

HSS-C @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-2@ Hw = 8 mm
Energy Output, kW.hr/day

Exergy Output, kW.hr/day

HSS-M-3@ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-C @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-2 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-3 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 16 mm

(a) (b)
Figure 5. (a) Energy outputs and (b) Exergy outputs.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3351

HSS-C @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-2@ Hw = 8 mm
Energy efficiency, ηen (%)

Exergy efficiency, ηex (%)

HSS-M-3@ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-C @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-2 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-3 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 16 mm
(a) (b)
Figure 6. (a) Average energy efficiency and (b) Average exergy efficiency.

Embodied energy and energy matrices

Table 3 provides an illustration of the calculated Ein values utilized in the production of the various HSS
pieces. Due to the high energy consumption of their manufacturing process, the transparent cover and
basin, which have embodied energy values of 117.67 kWh and 88.89 kWh, respectively, are the two items in
this table with the highest values. This is due to the higher total energy required for the extraction,
processing, manufacture, and delivery of transparent cover and basin materials (Tiwari and Sahota 2017).
The total Ein for HSS-C and HSS-M is also shown in these data to be 312.12 kWh and 389.89 kWh,
respectively. Figure 7 and b depict the energy payback time (EPBT) for HSS in various test cases based on
energy and exergy streams. The lower values of EPBT (as possible) mean that the HSS has a more energetical
and economic effect. These figures indicate that the highest values of EPBT based on the energy approach
for HSS-C and HSS-M are 0.29 and 0.27 years for 8 mm WH and 0.51 and 0.29 years for 16 mm WH,
respectively, as shown in Figure 7a and b shows the corresponding values according to the exergy approach
are 4.50 and 4.27 years and 8.01 and 5.75 years for HSS-C and HSS-M at 8 mm and 16 mm WH,
respectively. According to the results of all HSS operating conditions, the HSS-M has the lowest EPBT in
terms of energy and exergy approaches, with maximum reductions of approximately 20.07% and 49.88% for
energy EPBT at 8 mm and 16 mm WH and approximately 9.38% and 47.04%, respectively, for energy EPBT
at 8 mm and 16 mm WH. This can be explained by the fact that HSS-M has significantly higher energy and
exergy outputs than HSS-C, despite having higher embodied energy (Ein) values. The exergy-based EPBT is
significantly lower than the corresponding energy-based values, as shown in Figure 7b. This outcome can be
explained by the decline in annual energy output when taking into consideration the irreversibility of the
processes. Figure 8 also depict the maximum EPF values based on the notions of energy and exergy. The
HSS-C and HSS-M have enhancement ratios of approximately 25.11% and 99.51% for 8 mm WH and 1.94
and 3.88 for 16 mm WH, respectively. According to the exergy study, the equivalent values for HSS-C and
HSS-M are 0.22 and 0.25 to 8 mm WH and 0.12 and 0.24 to 16 mm WH, respectively, with an enhancement
ratio of roughly 10.35% and 88.81%. These findings demonstrate that when compared to traditional still
HSS-C, HSS-M has the highest EPF based on energy and exergy ideas. This development is brought on by an
increase in HSS-M’s energy and exergy outputs.

Economic, energoeconomic, and exergoeconomic analyses

Table 4 shows the calculated costs for the production, installation, and testing of HSS. HSS-C and HSS-M
have a total price of 115 and 130 US$, respectively. Figure 9a shows the freshwater production HSS-C and
HSS-M are 0.00227 $/L and 0.00194 $/L for 8 mm WH and, respectively, 0.00403 $/L and 0.00215 $/L for 16
mm WH based on the measured values of the water yield and Equations 15–18. Thus, the HSS-M reduces
the cost of freshwater by the most – by around 14.64% and 46.63%, respectively – for 8 mm and 16 mm WH,
but less so than HSS-C. The use of an IC by modern HSSs, notwithstanding the expensive cost of its
3352 S. A. EL-AGOUZ AND E. M. EL-SAID

HSS-C @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-2@ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-M-3@ Hw = 8 mm

EPBTex, year
EPBTen, year

HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-C @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-2 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-3 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 16 mm

(a) (b)
Figure 7. EPBTen (b) EPBTex.

HSS-C @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-2@ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-M-3@ Hw = 8 mm
EPFen, year-1

EPFex, year-1

HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-C @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-2 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-3 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 16 mm

(a) EPFen (b) EPFex

Figure 8. (a) EPFen, (b) EFTex.

manufacturing and installation, has a significant impact on the increase in water yield. The results of the
EXC parameter based on the exergy approach (Rg,ex) for HSS in various operating conditions are shown in
Figure 9.
For 8 mm WH, the maximum Rg,ex values for HSS-C and HSS-M are 1.62 kW.h/$ and 1.67 kW.h/$,
respectively, while for 16 mm WH, they are 0.91 kW.h/$ and 1.61 kW.h/$. This figure shows that the
HSS-M records the highest EXC parameter values as compared to other HSS-C operating conditions;
the EXC parameter increases by approximately 3.46% and 77.01% for 8 mm and 16 mm WH,
respectively. These findings highlight the fact that, as opposed to conventional energy analysis, the
exergy approach is a practical and reliable methodology for assessing energy systems.

Environmental, enviroeconomic, exergoenvironmental, and exergoenviroeconomic analysis

This section gives a general overview of how much CO2 is mitigated from an HSS, reducing the amount of
carbon dioxide released into the environment. According to the existing research, there is no likelihood of
selling the HSS’s carbon credit. The amount of carbon from an HSS that can be mitigated as well as the price
of carbon credits if they are sold are however discussed. The HSS does not pollute the environment because
it is entirely powered by solar energy. However, it was made utilizing components like wood, glass, steel
sheet, insulation, and paints that were powered by electricity produced by the conventional burning of fuel.
An enormous number of hazardous compounds are discharged into the atmosphere during this manu­
facturing process, which has a negative impact on the environment. According to the average CO2 for power
produced by conventional fuel, the HSS’s ACE and LCE, or lifetime CO2 emissions, are computed for a 10-
year lifespan based on Ein of the HSS. For all-operating HSS-C operating conditions, the calculated values for
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3353

HSS-C @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 8 mm
Water cost, (US$/L) HSS-M-2@ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-M-3@ Hw = 8 mm

Rg,ex, kW.hr/US$
HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-C @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-2 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-3 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 16 mm

(a) (b)
HSS-C @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-2@ Hw = 8 mm
ACM, ton CO2/yr

HSS-M-3@ Hw = 8 mm

LCM, ton CO2

HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-C @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-2 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-3 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 16 mm

(c) (d)
Figure 9. (a) Water production cost for various HSS test cases, (b) Rg,ex, (c) ACM, (d) LCM.

ACE and LCE are equal and record 62.424 kg of CO2 per year and 624.24 kg of CO2, whereas for all-running
HSS-M operating conditions, they are 77.978 kg of CO2 per year and 779.78 kg of CO2. In other words,
utilizing the IC results in an improvement in overall performance of no more than 24.92% CO2 emission.
Environmental parameters, such as annual CO2 mitigation (ACM) and CO2 mitigation over the course of
an HSS’s lifetime (LCM) are shown in Figure 9c and d, respectively, in two operating conditions. According
to the results of the environmental analysis, the HSS-C and HSS-M annually mitigated CO2 at a maximum
value of 2.15 and 2.69 tons and 1.21 and 2.42 tons for 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively, and mitigated
CO2 over the course of their lifetimes at 21.4 and 26.89 tons and 12.14 and 24.22 tons for 8 mm and 16 mm
WH, respectively. The modified HSS-M reduced carbon dioxide by approximately 25.11% and 99.51% for 8
mm and 16 mm WH, respectively, more than the HSS-C. This is because these systems have higher lifetime
energy production than embodied energy.
The environmental and EXE parameters, or CO2 net mitigation in tons during the lifespan, are shown in
Figure 10a and c; NLCMen and NLCMex for HSS in various operating conditions taking energy and exergetic
values, respectively. These numbers show that, for 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively, the HSS-C and HSS-
M were mitigated to a maximum value of roughly 20.87 and 26.26 tons and 11.51 and 23.59 tons based on
the environmental study. According to the EXE analysis, the comparable values for 8 mm and 16 mm WH
are 0.76 and 0.91 tons and 0.16 and 0.85 tons, respectively. At 8 mm and 16 mm WH, it can be seen that
HSS-C reduced more CO2 than the HSS-C by about 25.86% and 104.90% for NLCMen and approximately
18.80% and 445.72% for NLCMex, respectively. The carbon credit earned, also known as the ENC and EEC
parameters, as well as the CCEex and CCEen for HSS in various operating conditions taking energetic and
exergetic values, respectively, are shown in Figure 10b. As shown in Figure 10b and d, the ENC parameter
based on exergy (EEC) is substantially lower than the ENC parameter based on energy (ENC) for all
operating conditions. Figure 10b shows that for 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively, the rate of ENC
parameters for HSS-C and HSS-M is 302.60 $ and 380.84 $ and 166.95 $ and 342.07 $. Based on the EXE
analysis shown in Figure, the corresponding values for 8 mm and 16 mm WH are 11.7 and 13.15 and 2.25
and 12.29, respectively. These findings show that HSS-M has promising developed and is more reasonable
from the EXE and EEC approaches than HSS-C. Therefore, this may draw the conclusion that utilizing an
3354 S. A. EL-AGOUZ AND E. M. EL-SAID

HSS-C @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-2@ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-M-3@ Hw = 8 mm
NLCMen, ton CO2

CCEen, US$
HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-C @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-2 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-3 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 16 mm

(a) (b)
HSS-C @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 8 mm
HSS-M-2@ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-M-3@ Hw = 8 mm
NLCMex, ton CO2

CCEex, US$
HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 8 mm

HSS-C @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-1 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-2 @ Hw = 16 mm
HSS-M-3 @ Hw = 16 mm

HSS-M-4 @ Hw = 16 mm

(c) (d)
Figure 10. (a) NLCMen, (b) CCEen, (c) NLCMex (d) CCEex.

environmental strategy based on energy analysis is much more effective and trustworthy for making
decisions than utilizing environmental principles without energy analysis.

Comparison among present and similar SSs

In addition, Table 6 presents a comparison between the results of the current study with those of earlier,
comparable studies for thermal solar powered systems that have been examined in the literature based on
daily water productivity, energy and exergy efficiencies, and the cost of producing water. The results of the
HSS’s energy and exergy efficiencies show that it performs better than the earlier studied matrix-based SSs.
The ability to meet the necessary yield demand in a cost-effective way with little energy loss is a huge benefit.
The disparity in thermal efficiency between the present work and the related works by other authors, as seen
above, can be solely attributed to the various configurations used by them, in addition to design and
operating conditions, particularly the WH value, which has a significant impact on the performance of the

Table 6. Comparison of the current system with similar works.

Daily productivity, L/ Energy efficiency, Exergy efficiency, Cost, US
Process m2 % % $/L Reference
HSS 6.46 58.90 3.56 0.00194 Present work
MDSVD 16.50 77.20 – 0.0190 (Essa, Abou-Taleb, and Diab 2021)
TSS 9.67 28.43 2.56 0.0020 (Sambare et al. 2021)
HDH-SS 5.10 56.00 – 0.0090 Fath et al.2004
ISSS 3.96 36.00 – 0.1100
PCM-SSS 0.51 56.60 – – (Toosi, Goshayeshi, and Heris 2021)
SS-ECC 1.70 18.20 – 0.0102 (Nehar et al. 2022)
SS-EC 3.64 18.25 2.40 – (Rahmani, Khemmar, and Saadi
2021)
TrSS 2.21 28.00 1.50 0.0520 (Emran et al. 2022)
SS-HDH 18.25 Energy efficiency, – 0.0081 (Kabeel and El-Said 2018)
%
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3355

SS. As a result, the HSS’s performance is commendable, and it is thought to be a viable small-scale solar-
powered desalination system for desert or rural places.

Conclusions
IC is utilized in the current work to improve HSS performance. By running 10 test cases, two operating
conditions; HSS-C and HSS-M were experimentally studied. Assessment of the energy, exergy,
economic, and environmental performance is performed. The crucial and fundamental conclusions
are as follows:

● In terms of yield, energy and exergy efficiencies, production cost, the energy payback time, EXC,
EXE, and EEC characteristics, the SS with an inbuilt condenser outperforms all test scenarios.
● For 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively, the HSS-M gives high water yield at 5.57 L and 3.13 L,
respectively, with improvements of roughly 24.96% and 99.87%.
● For 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively, the daily energy and exergy outputs for SS-HSS
improved by around 25.11% and 99.51%, and 10.35% and 88.81%.
● For 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively, the energy and exergy efficiencies of HSS-M are
enhanced by around 17.31% and 60.37% and 4.88% and 51.88%.
● For 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively, the EPBT for HSS-M is lowered by approximately
20.07%, 49.88%, 9.38%, and 47.04% depending on energy and exergy concepts.
● Based on energy and exergy ideas, the EPF of HSS-M is raised by approximately 25.11% and
99.51%, and 10.35% and 88.81% for 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively.
● When compared to HSS-C, the HSS-M reduces the cost of freshwater by the most, by around
14.64 and 46.63% for 8 mm and 16 mm WH, respectively.
● For both energy and exergy models, the carbon dioxide net emissions reduced for HSS-HSC is higher.

The current study is considered as an attempt to open the research way to new design of SS depends on
maximize utilization of the available solar energy with more efficient condensation process. Based on the
study results, there are some limitations and recommendations for future works:

● Study the effect of various configuration of IC for covering more area.

● Study the influence of the heat storage materials utilization on SS performance with more time
operation.
● Study of utilizing solar radiation concentrator to compensate for some of the thermal energy may
losses due to presence on condenser inside SS cavity.

Nomenclatures
Latin Symbols
FA Amortization factor, %
OT Operating time, hr
T Temperature, ◦C
i Annual interest rate, % or index
Is Solar intensity, W/m2
Hw Water height, m
EPBT Energy payback time, yr.
EPF Energy production factor, %
R Enviroeconomic pramter, kW.hr/$
LCE CO2 emission through the solar still lifetime, ton CO2/yr.
ACE HSS annual carbon dioxide emission, ton CO2/yr
LCM CO2 mitigation through the solar still lifetime, ton CO2/yr
3356 S. A. EL-AGOUZ AND E. M. EL-SAID

ACM Annual CO2 mitigation, ton CO2/yr

NLCM carbon dioxide mitigation in tons over the lifetime, ton carbon dioxide
CCE Carbon credit earned, $
ICP International carbon price, $/ton CO2
u Uncertainty, according to the measured variable dimension or %
x Independent variables, according to the measured variable dimension
y Measured result, according to the measured variable dimension
Greek Symbols
η Efficiency
ψ Average carbon dioxide emission, kg CO2/kWh
Subscripts
am Ambient
g Glass
ex Exergy
en Energy
in In
out Out
dis Distilled water
od Operating day
cw Cooling water
evap Evaporation
dest Destructive
D Day
h Hour

Abbreviations
C Traditional
SS Solar Still
HSS Hemicylindrical Solar Still
EXC Exergoeconomic
EXE Exergoenvironmental
ENC Enviroeconomic
EEC Exergoenviroeconomic
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
TSS Tubular Solar Still
MDSVD Modified Double Stage Vertical Distiller
MSSVD Modified Single Stage Vertical Distiller
HDH Humidification DeHumidification
ISSS Improved Stepped Solar Still
PCM Phase Change Material
ECC External Copper Condenser
TrSS Triangular Solar Still
MDSVD Modified Double Stage Vertical Distiller

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3357

ORCID
Emad M.S. El-Said http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4247-5763

References
Abdelaziz, G. B., E. M. S. El-Said, A. G. Bedair, S. W. Sharshir, A. E. Kabeel, and A. M. Elsaid. 2021. Experimental Study
of Activated Carbon as a Porous Absorber in Solar Desalination with Environmental, Exergy, and Economic Analysis.
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 147:1052–65. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2021.01.031.
Abo-Elfadl, S., M. S. Yousef, and H. Hassan. 2021. Energy, exergy, economic and environmental assessment of using
different passive condenser designs of solar distiller. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 148:302–12. doi:10.
1016/j.psep.2020.10.022.
Amiri, H. 2022. Enhancing the stepped solar still performance using a built-in passive condenser. Solar Energy. doi:10.
1016/j.solener.2022.11.006.
Asgari, B., A. Hakkaki-Fard, and S. K. Hannani. 2023. On the performance of solar humidification-dehumidification
desalination system with subsurface condenser. Applied Thermal Engineering 220:119721. doi:10.1016/j.appltherma
leng.2022.119721.
El-Dessouky, H. T., and H. M. Ettouney. 2002. Fundamentals of saltwater desalination. 1st ed 514. The Netherlands:
ELSEVIER.
El-Said, E. M. S., and G. B. Abdelaziz. 2020. Experimental Investigation of a Solar Still Performance Using
High-Frequency Ultrasound Waves Atomizer. Journal of Cleaner Production 256:120609. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2020.120609.
El-Said, E. M. S., B. Abdelaziz, M. A. Dahab, and M. M. Omara. 2021. Solar desalination unit coupled with a novel
humidifier. Renewable Energy 180:297–312. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.08.105.
El-Said, E. M. S., S. M. Elshamy, and A. B. Kabeel. 2020. Performance enhancement of a tubular solar still by utilizing
wire mesh packing under harmonic motion. Desalination 474:114165. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2019.114165.
El-Said, E. M. S., A. E. Kabeel, and M. Abdulaziz. 2016. Theoretical study on hybrid desalination system coupled with
nano-fluid solar heater for arid states. Desalination 386:84–98. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2016.03.001.
Emran, N. Y. Y., A. Ebrahim, H. H. Al-Qadami, M. M. El-Sergany, M. Shafiquzzaman, M. Imteaz, A. W. M. Ng,
M. A. U. R. Tariq, S. Idrus, Z. Mustaffa, et al. 2022. Efficiency of a triangular solar still integrated with external PVC
pipe solar heater and internal separated condenser. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52:102258.
doi:10.1016/j.seta.2022.102258.
Enhancing the stepped solar still performance using a built-in passive condenserSolar Energy248202288–10210.1016/j.
solener.2022.11.006
Essa, F. A., F. S. Abou-Taleb, and M. R. Diab. 2021. Experimental investigation of vertical solar still with rotating discs,
Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery. Utilization, and Environmental Effects 1–21. doi:10.1080/15567036.2021.1950238.
Fath, H. E. S., S. Elsherbiny, and A. Ghazy. 2004. A naturally circulated humidifying/dehumidifying solar still with a
built-in passive condenser. Desalination 169 (2):129–49. doi:10.1016/S0011-9164(04)00521-1.
Jaluria, Y., Design and optimization of thermal systems. 2nd Ed. CRC Press; (2007). 398
Kabeel, A. E., G. B. Abdelaziz, and E. M. S. El-Said. 2019. Experimental investigation of a solar still with composite
material heat storage: Energy, exergy and economic analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 231:21–34. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.05.200.
Kabeel, A. E., M. Abdelgaied, and E. M. S. El-Said. 2017. Study of a solar-driven membrane distillation system:
Evaporative cooling effect on performance enhancement, Renew. Energy 106:192–200. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.
01.030.
Kabeel, A. E., T. Abou-Elmaaty, and E. M. S. El-Said. 2013. Economic analysis of a small-scale hybrid air HDH-SSF
(humidification and dehumidification-water flashing evaporation) desalination plant. Energy 53:306–11. doi:10.1016/
j.energy.2013.02.042.
Kabeel, A. E., and E. M. S. El-Said. 2013. Technological aspects of advancement in low-capacity solar thermal
desalination units. International Journal of Sustainable Energy 32 (5):315–32. doi:10.1080/14786451.2012.757613.
Kabeel, A. E., and E. M. S. El-Said. 2014. Development Strategies and Solar Thermal Energy Utilization for Water
Desalination Systems in Remote Regions: A Review. Desalination and Water Treatment 52 (22–24):22–24. doi:10.
1080/19443994.2013.808394.
Kabeel, A. E., and E. M. S. El-Said. 2018. Experimental study on a modified solar power-driven hybrid desalination
system. Desalination 443:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2018.05.017.
Kabeel, A. E., E. M. S. El-Said, and M. Abdulaziz. 2019. Computational fluid dynamic as a tool for solar still performance
analysis and design development: A review. Desalin. Water Treat. doi: 10.5004/dwt.2019.24150.
Kabeel A.E., E. M. S. El-Said, and M. Abdulaziz. 2019. Water Treat. Desalination and Water Treatment 159:200–13.
doi:10.5004/dwt.2019.24150.
3358 S. A. EL-AGOUZ AND E. M. EL-SAID

Kabeel, A. E., R. Sathyamurthy, S. A. El-Agouz, A. M. Manokar, and E. M. S. El-Said. 2019. Experimental studies on
inclined PV panel solar still with cover cooling and PCM. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry
138 (6):3987–95. doi:10.1007/s10973-019-08561-6.
Lior, N. 2012. Advances in Water Desalination. 1st ed. India: Wiley.
Mevada, D., H. Panchal, and K. K. Sadasivuni. 2021. Investigation on evacuated tubes coupled solar still with condenser
and fins: Experimental, exergo-economic and exergo-environment analysis. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering
27:101217. doi:10.1016/j.csite.2021.101217.
Nehar, L., T. Rahman, S. S. Tuly, M. S. Rahman, M. R. I. Sarker, and M. R. A. Beg. 2022. Thermal performance analysis of
a solar still with different absorber plates and external copper condenser. Groundwater for Sustainable Development
17:100763. doi:10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100763.
Petela, R. 2003. Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation, Sol. Energy 74 (6):469–88. doi:10.1016/S0038-092X(03)00226-3.
Rahmani, A., F. Khemmar, and Z. Saadi. 2021. Experimental investigation on the negative effect of the external
condenser on the conventional solar still performance. Desalination 501:114914. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2020.114914.
Sambare, R. K., S. K. Dewangan, P. K. Gupta, and S. S. Joshi. 2021. Exergy and thermo-economic analyses of various
tubular solar still configurations for improved performance, Experimental investigation of vertical solar still with
rotating discs. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 43 (21):2672–91. doi:https://
doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2021.1887977.
Shoeibi, S., N. Rahbar, A. A. Esfahlani, and H. Kargarsharifabad. 2021. A review of techniques for simultaneous
enhancement of evaporation and condensation rates in solar stills. Solar Energy 225:666–93. doi:10.1016/j.solener.
2021.07.028.
Tiwari, G. N., and L. Sahota. 2017. Advanced Solar-Distillation Systems: Basic Principles, Thermal Modeling, and Its
Application. 1st ed. Singapore: Springer.
Toosi, S. S., H. R. Goshayeshi, and S. Z. Heris. 2021. Experimental investigation of stepped solar still with phase change
material and external condenser. Journal of Energy Storage 40:102681. doi:10.1016/j.est.2021.102681.
Tsatsaronis, G. 2011. Exergoeconomics and exergoenvironmental analysis, Thermodyn. Destr Resour 1:377–401.
Yousef, M. S., and H. Hassan. 2019. Assessment of different passive solar stills via exergoeconomic, exergoenviron­
mental, and exergoenviroeconomic approaches: A comparative study, Sol. Energy 182:316–31. doi:10.1016/j.solener.
2019.02.042.