Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Exergoeconomic analysis for cost optimization of a solar distillation

system
Ayman G.M. Ibrahim a,⇑, Ahmed M. Rashad a, Ibrahim Dincer b
a
Department of Mechanical Power and Energy, Military Technical College, Cairo, Egypt
b
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 7K4, Canada

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

Article history: In this paper, an exergoeconomic optimization of the recently developed, evacuated solar distillation sys-
Received 1 November 2016 tem is performed in order to evaluate the cost parameters, along with the energy and exergy analyses of
Received in revised form 20 April 2017 the system. The present study includes the development of an exergoeconomic model for the system
Accepted 5 May 2017
which is implemented in a MATLAB code and solved dynamically on an hourly basis. In addition, a sen-
Available online 12 May 2017
sitivity analysis is carried out to investigate the effects of key variables on the exergoeconomic cost of
fresh water production. Furthermore, an optimization of the system, through a graphical approach, is car-
Keywords:
ried out to minimize the exergoeconomic cost of the system product (i.e., fresh water). The results of this
Solar energy
Desalination
exergoeconomic optimization are compared with corresponding ones of the present system. It is revealed
Exergoeconomics that the cost of exergy destructions is decreased by 36%, and hence, the exergoeconomic cost of fresh
Optimization water is decreased by about 45% after the optimization.
Cost Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction There are, however, a variety of desalination processes available

Recently, it has been observed that nearly 40% of the world’s
population is suffering from serious water shortages and that this
is expected to increase to about 60% by the year 2025 (El-Dessouky
and Ettouney, 2002). This can be attributed to changes in life-style,
increase economic activities and detrimental pollution which dras-
tically affect the use of fresh water sources. An estimate of the total
amount of water on the Earth provides a figure of about
1.4
109 km3. Seawater is about 97.5% of the total available water,
while the remaining 2.5% (i.e. 3.5
107 km3) is constituted by
underground and surface waters. A remarkable 80% of the latter
is frozen water in glaciers, so that only 0.5% of the total amount
available is to be found in lakes, rivers and aquifers (Micale et al.,
2009). Water desalination has been recognized as one of the
humanities top ten problems and will even continue to attract
more attention during the next decade, since the seas and oceans
are dependable source of water in an era when traditional sources
become less reliable. Further, more than 70% of the world popula-
tion lives within 70 km of seas or oceans (El-Dessouky and
Ettouney, 2002). The combination of these facts makes desalina-
tion an attractive alternative to diminishing fresh water sources.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: agmibrahim@hotmail.com (A.G.M. Ibrahim).
for practical applications, including all source water types, the
reverse osmosis (RO) is the predominant desalination process
accounting for 51% of the global capacity. Besides, 40% is produced
by thermal desalination plants, either multi-stage flash (MSF) or
multi-effect distillation (MED) plants, with relative market shares
of 32% and 8%. Minor desalination processes include the vapor
compression (VC), humidification and dehumidification (HDH)
and electrodialysis (ED) processes with about 9% market share
(Lattemann, 2010).
The critical issue is that desalination systems are recognized
energy and capital intensive. Energy is required to remove salt from
the source water, convey treated water and manage process waste.
Typical desalination plants generally consume fossil fuel heat or
fossil fuel sourced electricity. Thermal desalination processes con-
sume approximately the equivalent of 10–15 kW h m3 for thermal
processes versus 5 kW h m3 for RO plants. Electric power con-
sumption is currently rated at 5 kW h m3 for the RO, 4 kW h m3
for MSF, and 3 kW h m3 for MED systems (Micale et al., 2009).
With growing concern over the climate change, increasing overall
consumed energy to meet water demand is not recommended.
Ideal solutions sustainably increase water supply without increas-
ing fossil fuel consumption or posing other environmental threats.
Utilization of solar energy in desalination helps making small
scale units suitable and effective for remote and small communi-
ties (Kalogirou, 2005; Tiwari et al., 2003). The most common of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.05.020
0038-092X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A.G.M. Ibrahim et al. / Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32 23

Nomenclature

A area (m2) Subscripts

C solute concentration (%), specific heat (J kg1 °C) a ambient
C_ cost rate ($ h1) b direct, base
c unit cost ($ kJ1) c condenser
D diameter (m), density (kg m3) cond condensation
dw depth of saline water (m) conv convection
Ex exergy (kJ) cu copper
f correction factor D destruction
h convection heat transfer coefficient (W m2 K1), speci- d diffuse, destruction, distillate
fic enthalpy (kJ kg1) dw distilled water
H length of fin (m) eff effective
hfg latent heat of vaporization (kJ kg1) evap evaporation
I incident solar radiation (W m2) f fresh water, film
i interest rate (%) g glass
k thermal conductivity (W m1 K1) i inner, number 1,2,3,. . .
l length (m) in inlet
m mass (kg) m nass
M accumulated annual fresh water production (L) o dead state, outer
N number of fins out outlet
n number of life year (y) P product
P vapor pressure (N m2), total capital cost ($) Q heat
R ratio (dimensionless) r reflected
r radius (m) rad radiation
S salvage value ($) s still, surface
Q_ heat transfer rate (W) st steel
T temperature (°C) T total
t thickness (m), Time (s) t total
w average wind speed (m s1) t total
W work (kJ) v vapour
Z_ investment cost rate ($ h1) W work
w saline water
Greek letters
a absorptivity (dimensionless) Abbreviations
am experimental coefficient (107–106 kg m2 Pa1 s1 - AMC Annual Maintenance Cost
K0.5) ASV Annual Salvage Value
b slope (°) inclined surface CRF Capital Recovery Factor
e emissivity (dimensionless) ED Electrodialysis
g energy efficiency (%) FAC Fixed Annual Cost
gex exergy efficiency (%) HDH Humidification and Dehumidification
h solar incidence angle (°) MED Multi-effect Distillation
hZ zenith angle (°) MSF Multi-stage Flash
q reflectivity (dimensionless), density (kg m3) PCM Phase Change Materials
r Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67
108 W m2 K4) RO Reverse Osmosis
s annual operation hours (h) SFF Sinking Fund Factor
VC Vapor Compression
Superscripts
T total
 rate

solar distillation systems is basin type stills, where a shallow pool
of water is heated by insolation that passes through a southern ori-
ented tilted glass cover. The water in the pool then evaporates and
condenses on the glass covering, from which point it drips onto a
collection bin. Basin type stills are usually characterized by low
production efficiency (Cooper, 1973) and thus tend to be large in
order to produce a sufficient quantity of water.
Numerous practices have been investigated to enhance the per-
formance of solar stills, including the application of: different
materials (Ahsan et al., 2014), or novel designs for instance; utiliza-
tion of internal reflectors (Estahbanati et al., 2016), increasing area
of condensation surface (Bhardwaj et al., 2015), multi-stage still
equipped with solar collectors (Feilizadeh et al., 2015;
Estahbanati et al., 2015), inverted absorber solar still (Dev et al.,
2011), and double basin solar still (Al-Karaghoulia and Alnaser,
2004). Further studies considered employment of energy storage
materials; either sensible heat storage medium (Murugavel et al.,
2010) or latent heat storage materials (particularly, phase change
materials as PCM) (El-Sebaii et al., 2009). In a recent study,
Sharshir et al. (2016) presented a detailed review of factors affect-
ing solar still yield and enhancement techniques.
The solar vacuum stills will reduce the effects of high thermal
resistance attributed to Fick’s Law of Diffusion, use minimal evap-
oration energy and thus allowing for more efficient production of
distilled water. Performance of evacuated solar still was explored
theoretically by Al-Hussaini and Smith (Al-Hussaini and Smith,
1995). Their results showed a yield improvement about 100%. An
evacuated triple-effect solar still which combined 7.8 m2 solar
24 A.G.M. Ibrahim et al. / Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32
collector and 3.7 m2 solar cells was experimentally investigated by
Nishikawa et al. (1998). The solar distillation system produced up
to 73.6 kg day1 of distilled water at a solar radiation of
13.85 MJ m2 day1. Later, Abakr and Ismail (2005) constructed
an evacuated multi-stage solar still. The saline water was pre-
heated through flat plate solar collector. The maximum yield was
14.2 kg m2 day1 at a vacuum pressure of 0.5 bar.
Furthermore, Sriram et al. (2013) investigated a double slope,
passive type evacuated solar still with external condenser and
energy storage materials. The maximum yield was obtained when
a light cotton cloth was used as wick material in the basin. Most
recently, an experimental investigation of evacuated modified
solar still is reported by Ibrahim et al. (2015). The improvements
of 16.2% in yield and 29.7% in thermal efficiency, respectively; were
reported by comparing with the conventional solar still.
Regarding exergy analysis and evaluation of solar distillation
systems, Torchia-Nunez et al. (2008) presented an exergy destruc-
tion analysis of simple solar still. Kumar and Tiwari (2011) devel-
oped an expression for instantaneous exergy efficiency of basic
solar still. Kianifar et al. (2012) presented exergy and economic
analysis of pyramid-shaped solar still. Most recently, Ibrahim and
Dincer (2015) implied an extensive exergy analysis of evacuated
modified solar still to calculate the improvement potential rates
and identify possible enhancements of system design.
In recent decades, the interest in exergoeconomics increases and
plays a crucial role in analyzing, designing and optimizing thermal
systems (Tsatsaronis, 1993). Exergoeconomics is an exergy-aided
cost accounting approach that integrates exergy with the economic
principles. Ranjan and Kaushik (2013) conducted a review of exergy
and thermo-economic analyses for solar distillation systems. For
simple solar still, it is reported that the maximum exergy efficiency
becomes less than 5% and that the yield cost varies from $ 0.014 to
0.237 kg1. Tiwari et al. (2015) presented an exergoeconomic anal-
ysis of active solar distillation system. The proposed system incor-
porated a partially covered photovoltaic thermal flat plate collector.
The hourly thermal, exergy, electrical, overall exergy and overall
thermal efficiency were evaluated based on experimental measure-
ments. Most recently, Singh and Tiwari (2017) performed exergoe-
conomic analyses of single and double slope photovoltaic thermal
compound parabolic concentrator collectors integrated with basin
type solar still. The reported active solar distillation systems were
proposed to meet the potable water needs on a commercial scale
as well as DC electrical power during daylight hours.
Based on the above literature review, it is indicated that no pre-
vious research were conducted to optimize exergeconomically pas-
sive solar distillation system. Therefore, the aim of the present
investigation is to carry out an exergoeconomic optimization of a
recently developed solar distillation system for the costs. The pre-
sent system operates under vacuum conditions as equipped with
an air-cooled condenser. The sub-objectives of present investiga-
tion are multi-fold and include:
 Comprehensive thermodynamic modeling for energy and
exergy flows and exergy destructions.
 Exergoeconomic modeling and optimization of the system
cost parameters for further improvement and better cost
effectiveness.
 Sensitivity analysis to identify the effect of variations of operat-
ing parameters on the exergoeconomic cost of system product
(fresh water).
2. Solar distillation system description
A schematic diagram of r recently developed solar distillation
system is illustrated in Fig. 1. The two main components are still
(evaporation chamber) and condenser (fresh water chamber). The
Air-cooled
Condenser
Evaporaon
Chamber
Condensate
Receiver
Fresh Water
Tank
Fig. 1. Schematic of the solar distillation system.
still includes volume surrounding the saline water and bounded
by the transparent cover and basin base. The function of air-
cooled condenser is to prevent water condensation on the inner
of transparent cover which in turn reduces the solar energy inci-
dent on the base of still. The vacuum is produced by using a
two-stage vacuum pump EdwardsÒ (Model E2M18) with displace-
ment 25.0 m3/h and motor power 0.75 kW. The vacuum pump
operates for only 5 min, as maximum, before the startup of the sys-
tem. The details of the system construction, measurement instru-
mentation and error analysis along with experimental tests of
the system are presented elsewhere (Ibrahim et al., 2015).
3. Thermodynamic model development
The investigated solar distillation system is divided into four
elements; glass cover, saline water chamber, basin base and fresh
water chamber. Regards to the physical model of the system, it is
decomposed into; still and condenser. The boundaries and heat
interactions within the system are outlined in Fig. 2. The percent-
age of energy consumed to develop vacuum is about 0.5% of the
average daily input solar energy. So, the electric energy used to
operate the vacuum pump is ignored. The assumptions that used
in developing a thermodynamic model of the system are reported
elsewhere (Ibrahim and Dincer, 2015).
3.1. Calculation of solar radiation
The first step in the mathematical model is to estimate the total
solar irradiance, IT, incident on a tilted glass cover with angle b and
reflectivity q. It is calculated as
IT ¼ Ib Rb þ Id Rd þ Rr ðIb þ Id Þ ð1Þ
where Rb ¼ cosh=coshz , Rd ¼ ð1 þ cosbÞ=2 and Rr ¼ qð1  cosbÞ=2.
The angle of incidence of beam radiation, h, the zenith angle, hz,
the direct solar radiation on a horizontal surface, Ib, and the diffuse
solar radiation on horizontal surface, Id, are determined as reported
by Ibrahim and Salman (Singh and Tiwari, 2017).
3.2. Calculation of evaporation rates
For vacuum operation solar distillation system, the evaporation
_ fc , from evaporator chamber (still) to fresh
rate per unit area, m
water chamber (condenser) is calculated based on Bemporad cor-
relation (Ibrahim and Elshamarka, 2015) as follows:
!
PTw PTf
_ fc ¼ am fðCÞ
m  ð2Þ
ðTw þ 273Þ 0:5
ðTf þ 273Þ0:5
 A.G.M. Ibrahim et al. / Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32 25

A g IT Qg

Ta SYSTEM C.V.
αg Ag IT Tgo mfg Cfw Tgi
Glass Cover mg Cg ΔTg/Δt
Ta
Tgi
αw τ g Ab IT
CONDENSER C.V.

Qs mfg hfg Q rad,w-g mfc Cfw Tci

Ts
Saline Water Tw Condenser Tci
Ta mfc hfg Ta
mw Cw ΔTw/Δt
Tco

STILL C.V.
αb τ g τ w Ab IT

Basin Base Tb Q b-w

Ta Ta
Qb Qc

Fig. 2. Heat interactions of the solar distillation system.

_ fg , on the inner glass

Similarly, the evaporation rate per unit area, m where Tsun is the solar radiation temperature, i.e. sun temperature,
cover is determined as follows: taken as 6000 K. This relation is applied for fully concentrated
! blackbody radiation corresponding to the case of hemispherical
PTw PTgi
_ fg ¼ am fðCÞ
m  ð3Þ blackbody radiation reservoirs, i.e. the Sun with geometrical
ðTw þ 273Þ0:5 ðTgi þ 273Þ0:5 factor =1, and blackbody absorbers, i.e. the basin base.The exergy
balance equation for a system component i is as follows:
where the correction factor, f(C), accounts for the solute concentra- X X X
tion and is estimated as reported in Bemporad (1995).The total _ d;i ¼
Ex _ Q W
Ex _ þ _ in 
Ex _ out
Ex ð6Þ
_ ft , of the solar distillation system is the sum of
evaporation rate, m
Eqs. (2) and (3). where Ex_ d;i denotes the rate of exergy destruction in the component
P _ _ represent the exergy rate of the flow in or out from
i. Ex and W
3.3. Energy and exergy analyses the component i and power, respectively.
The summary equations of energy and exergy analysis of the
The heat of evaporation, Q_ evap , is evaluated as solar distillation system are given in Table 1. The equations used
in calculation of various heat interactions are listed in the Appen-
Q_ evap ¼ m
_ ft hfg ð4Þ dix. The specific details of thermodynamic model are available
_ Q , and with mass elsewhere (Ibrahim and Dincer, 2015).
The exergy associated with heat transfer, Ex
_ m , are calculated as reported by Dincer and Rosen (2013).
flow, Ex
4. Exergoeconomic model development
Meanwhile, the solar radiation exergy at temperature Tsun is
expressed as (Petela, 2003);
" An exergoeconomic evaluation of the present solar distillation
   4 #
4 To 1 To system is based on the following variables calculated for each com-
_ sun
Ex ¼ IT
1 
þ
ð5Þ
3 Tsun 3 Tsun ponent of the system: (i) total investment cost rate, Z_ T in $/h, asso-
ciated with capital investment and operating and maintenance

Table 1
Summary of energy and exergy analyses of the solar distillation system.

No Component/system Energy analysis Exergy analysis

_ fg _ fg
1 Evaporator Glass ag Ag IT þ Q_ rad;wg þ Q_ evap ð m
_ ft Þ
m
(7a) _ d;g ¼ ag Ag Ex
Ex _ sun þ Ex
_ Qrad;w g
_ evap ð
þ Ex
m
_ ft Þ
m

DExg
Dt
_ Qg  Ex
 Ex _ m
fg
(7b)
chamber (Still) cover
¼ mg Cg DTg =Dt þ Q_ g þ m _ fg Cfw Tgi
Saline aw sg Ab IT þ Q_ bw ¼ mw Cw DTw =Dt þ Q_ evap (8a) Ex _ sun þ Ex
_ d;w ¼ aw sg Ab Ex _ Q ;bw  DExw  Ex
Dt
_ evap  Ex
_ Qs  Ex
_ Qrad;wg (8b)
water þQ_ s þ Q_ rad;wg
Basin base ab sg sw Ab IT ¼ Q_ b þ Q_ bw (9a) Ex _ sun  Ex
_ d;b ¼ ab sg sw Ab Ex _ Qb  Ex
_ Q ;b w
(9b)
   
2 Condenser _ evap
Q
_ fc
m _ c þm
¼ Q _ fc Cfw Tci (10a) _ d;c ¼ Ex
Ex _ evap fc  Ex
m_ _ Qc  Ex_ m (10b)
_ ft
m _ ft
m fc

3 Performance Still _ (11a) _ Q (11b)

gs ¼ Q cond
IT Ag gex;s ¼ 
Ex cond
4

criteria 143
ðTTsun
o
Þþ13
ðTTsun
o
Þ IT Ag

Condenser Q_ c (12a) _ Q (12b)

gc ¼ _ evap ð _m gex;c ¼ Ex

c 
_m Þ
Q fc _m
ft
_ evap
Ex fc
_m
ft

System _ evap (13a) ð1TTw

oÞ
(13b)
g¼ Q
IT Ag gex ¼ g
 4

143
ðTTsun
o
Þþ13
ðTTsun
o
Þ
26 A.G.M. Ibrahim et al. / Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32

Table 2 The cost rate of exergy destruction in each system component is

Capital cost of the solar distillation system. expressed as
Components Cost ($)
C_ D ¼ cP Ex
_ d ð16Þ
1-Evaporator chamber
Carbon steel body 50 where Ex_ d denotes the exergy destruction rate within the compo-
Galvanized iron stand 10
nent in kJ/h and it is obtained from exergy analysis. The unit cost
Paint 3
Glass cover 20 of exergy destruction rate within the component, cP in $/kJ, is
Silicon rubber 5 defined as follows:
Polypropylene pipes 20
Isolating valves 10 C_ P
cP ¼ ð17Þ
Polycarbonate fresh water tank 7 _ P
Ex
Fabrication (welding, forming and glass cutting) 15
Evaporator chamber capital cost 140
where Ex_ P denotes exergy rate of product of the component. _CP is
2-Condenser the cost rate of product of the component and it is obtained from
Condenser copper tube and fins 35
thermo-economic cost balance of the component.
Galvanized iron condensate receiver 5
Isolating valve 5
The general form of exergoeconomic cost balance equation is
Fabrication 10 defined as (Bejan et al., 1996)
Condenser capital cost 55 X X
C_ þ C_ Q þ Z_ T ¼ C_ þ C_ W ð18Þ
Total capital cost 110
in out

where _C denotes total cost rates of the exergy streams across a

expenses, and (ii) cost rate of exergy flow streams, C_ in $/h. The
component in the system and Z_ T is total investment cost rate of
cost rate of exergy streams gives an idea about the cost distribu-
the component. These are defined as follows:
tion. However, it does not help to make a decision. So, these results
are proceeded in calculating the exergoeconomic variables, such as C_ ¼ cin;out Ex
_ in;out ð19Þ
the exergoeconomic cost of product, cd in $/kJ, the cost rate of
exergy destructions, C_ D in $/h, and the unit cost of the solar distil- C_ Q ¼ cQ Ex
_ Q ð20Þ
lation system product, cdw in $/L. The following sections provide
the analyses for these parameters. C_ W ¼ cW W
_ ð21Þ

Z_ T ¼ ZT =s ð22Þ
4.1. Economic analysis
where cin;out is cost of exergy unit associated with flow stream in $/kJ,
The economic analysis, conducted as part of the exergoeconmic _ in;out is exergy rate associated with flow stream in kJ/h, cQ is cost of
Ex
analysis, provides the appropriate cost values associated with the _ Q is exergy rate
exergy unit associated with heat transfer in $/kJ, Ex
capital investment, operating and maintenance costs of the solar
associated with heat transfer in kJ/h, cW is unit cost of power in $/
distillation system. These values are used in the cost balance equa-
_ is power in kJ/h, and s is annual operation hours. The unknown
kJ, W
tions in the next section. The major difference between conven-
tional economic analysis and cost assessment conducted as part variables in the above equations are the costs per exergy unit, cin, out
of the exergoeconomic analysis is that a cost accounting of exergy for a flow stream or cw and cQ for the corresponding energy transfer.
flows and product exergy is carried out. Here, the key economic The exergoeconomic balance equations for the still and con-
parameters are introduced. denser will be
The Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) and Fixed Annual Cost (FAC) _ w;g cw;s þ Ex
_ZT ¼ Ex _ v;c cv;c ð23Þ
S
are defined in El-Sebaii and El-Naggar (2017). The interest per year,
i, and the number of life years of the system, n, are assumed 12% _ZT þ Ex
_ v;c cv;c ¼ Ex
_ w;c cw;c ð24Þ
C
and 10, respectively. The breakdown of system total capital cost,
P, is outlined in Table 2. By assuming cw;s ¼ cv;c , the unit product costs for both still and
By taking the salvage value of system, S, equal to 10% of capital condenser are obtained as
cost, the Annual Salvage Value (ASV) can be expressed respectively Z_ TS
as follows: cw;s ¼ ð25Þ
_
Exw;s þ Ex _ v;c
i
ASV ¼ n1
S ð14Þ Z_ TC þ Ex_ v;c cw;s
1 þ ðiÞ cw;c ¼ ð26Þ
_
Exw;c
The Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC) of the solar distillation The exergoeconomic cost of the solar distillation system product
system is assumed to be 5% of the Fixed Annual Cost (FAC). There- (distillate), cd in $/kJ, is calculated as follows:
fore, the total investment cost (ZT) becomes P_
C_ D;system CD
cd ¼ ¼P
ZT ¼ FAC þ AMC  ASV ð15Þ _ d;system
Ex _ d
Ex
_ _ _ d;g Þ þ cw;c Ex
cw;s ðExd;b þ Exd;w þ Ex _ d;c
¼
4.2. Exergoeconomic analysis Ex_ d;b þ Ex_ d;w þ Ex
_ d;g þ Ex
_ d;c
_ d;s þ cw;c Ex
cw;s Ex _ d;c
Exergoeconomic analysis is used to calculate: (i) the cost rate of ¼ ð27Þ
_ _
Exd;s þ Exd;c
the exergy destroyed within each system component, C_D in $/h, (ii)
the exergoeconomic cost of product, cd in $/kJ, and (iii) the unit where C_ D;system is the total cost rate of exergy destruction in $/h, and
cost of the solar distillation system product, cdw in $/L. _ d;system is the total exergy destruction rate in kJ/h.Eventually, the
Ex
 A.G.M. Ibrahim et al. / Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32 27

Table 3
The parameters used in the present model development.
START
Parameter Value (unit) Reference
Read System Design Parameters i.e. Dimensions, C 3.5 (%) Assumed
Properties of Construction Materials, etc… w 2 (m s1) Assumed
b 30 (deg) Assumed
tst 0.004 (m) Assumed
Calculate System Specifications
kst 50 (W m1 K1) Incropera et al. (2007)
kcu 110 (W m1 K1) Incropera et al. (2007)
Enter System Operating Parameters, Dg 2500 (kg m3) Incropera et al. (2007)
i.e. Location, Date, Initial Concentration, etc… kg 1.4 (W m1 K1) Incropera et al. (2007)
Cg 750 (J kg1 K1) Incropera et al. (2007)
eg 0.86 (–) Siegel and Howell (1992)
Calculate Solar Radiation (Direct and Diffuse)
ab 0.88 (–) Siegel and Howell (1992)
ew 0.96 (–) Siegel and Howell (1992)
Assume Initial Operating Conditions
(T for Water and T for Evaporator and Condenser)

35

x 10⁴
Calculate Water Thermophysical Properties
Io
(Saline and Fresh)
30 I-hor

Monthly Isolaon (W/m²)

I-30 deg
Carry out Evaporation Chamber Analysis 25

20
Calculate Evaporation Rate

15
Calculate New Concentration
10
Carry out Condenser Analysis
5

Solve Governing Equations (Mass, Energy & Exergy)

0
& Calculate New Operating Conditions
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Replace Initial No
Solution
Temperatures with Fig. 4. Monthly variation of solar radiations in Cairo, Egypt.
Converges
New Ones

Yes
20 25
Display Values of Pressures, Temperatures, m_s
Energy and Exergy Streams, System 18
m_c
Performance Parameters in the Time Step 16 20
Component Monthly Yield (L)

m_t

Total Monthly Yield (L)

14
All Time No 12 15
Go to the Next
Steps
Time Step 10
Covered
8 10
Yes
6
Calculate Total Investment Cost
4 5

Solve Cost Balance Equations & 2

Calculate Exergoeconomic Parameters 0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Display Values of Daily Energy and Exergy Month
Streams, Exergoeconomic and System
Performance Parameters Fig. 5. Monthly variation of still, condenser and system fresh water production.

Plot Figures of Solar Isolation, Components’

and System Yield, Exergy Destructions and
Efficiencies
5. System optimization

It is now important to conduct an exergoeconomic optimization

END
after introducing the exergoeconomic model. An optimization can
be performed either experimentally, graphically, analytically, or
Fig. 3. Computer program flow chart. numerically. The experimental method involves changing key vari-
ables one by one and recording the system performance. With this
method there is limitation, such that changing one variable inter-
unit cost of solar distillation system product (distillate), cdw in $/L, is
acts with another leading to unreliable results and difficulties in
expressed as follows:
achieving optimization of the system. Graphical method plots the
P function on a graph and can be used when there are one or two
ZT ZTS þ ZTC
cdw ¼ ¼ ð28Þ independent variables. An optimum set of variables is chosen
M M
based on the criteria of finding the maximum or minimum. The
where M is the accumulated annual fresh water production in L. analytical method uses calculus to find the minimum or maximum
28 A.G.M. Ibrahim et al. / Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32

(a) 10.5 1 40 50

Component Exergy Destrucon Rate (kW)

System Exergy Destrucon Rate (kW)

η_s
35 45
10.25 η_s_ex 40
0.8 30

Sll Exergy Efficiency (%)

35
Sll Efficiency (%)

10 25 30
0.6
20 Ex_d_s 25
9.75 Ex_d_c
15 Ex_d 20
0.4
9.5 15
10
10
0.2 5
9.25 5
0 0
9 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month
Month
Fig. 8. The exergy destructions of the solar distillation system.
(b) 95 35
η_c
94
30

Condenser Exergy Efficiency (%)

η_c_ex Table 4
93 The results of economic analysisab .
Condenser Efficiency (%)

92 25
Parameter Evaporator chamber Condenser
91
20 P ($) 140 55
90 CRF 0.134 0.134
15 FAC ($) 18.8 7.4
89
SFF 0.043 0.043
88 10 ASV ($) 0.6 0.24
AMC ($) 0.94 0.37
87
5 ZT ($) 19.1 7.5
86
85 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec VC desalination system as an effective tool to find out the best
Month solutions between the two rival points, maximizing exergy effi-
ciency (i.e. minimizing exergy requirement) and minimizing exer-
Fig. 6. The energy and exergy efficiency of system components; (a) still and (b)
condenser.
goeconomic costs (i.e., cost per exergy unit of product). Sayyaadi
et al. (2010) performed multi-objective optimization of MED sys-
tem to minimize either the cost of the system product (fresh
28 3 water) and/or maximizing the exergetic efficiency of the system.
The proposed MED system including six decision variables was
27.5
2.5 considered for optimization. A hybrid stochastic/deterministic
System Exergy Efficiency (%)

27 optimization approach known as genetic algorithm was utilized

System Efficiency (%)

2 as an optimization method. Later, Esfahani et al. (2012) utilized

26.5
26
η_ex
25.5
25
24.5
24
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Fig. 7. The energy and exergy efficiency of solar distillation system.
of a function by finding the values of the independent variables
which cause the derivative of the function to become zero. While
simple, it cannot be applied to problems with more than two or
three independent variables. Contrary, numerical methods can
solve highly complex problems and are programmed into a com-
puter to be solved. Numerical methods use iterative steps to pro-
gressively get closer to an improved solution starting with an
initial guess. This method completes when changes in the indepen-
dent variables from iteration to iteration become insignificant.
There are limited studies in the open literature on exergoeco-
nomic optimization of desalination systems. Evans et al. (1980)
conducted a pioneering work in exergoeconomic optimization of
the same approach for optimization of MED-TVC desalination
1.5 system.
Prior to the present work, there is no exergoeconomic optimiza-
1 tion study for a passive solar distillation system. The function to be
optimized (so-called: objective function) is exergoeconomic cost of
0.5 the solar distillation system product as given in Eq. (27), and the
independent variables are the rate of exergy destructions; Ex _ d;s
0 _ d;c . In this case (i.e. two key variables); the graphical opti-
and Ex
mization approach is adapted to the current solar distillation
system.
The developed thermodynamic model is utilized to solve energy
balance equations iteratively and calculate the temperatures, pres-
sures, mass streams and energy rate streams in the solar distilla-
tion system. Then, the exergy destructions and exergy rate
streams for the solar distillation system are obtained by using
exergy balance equations. Eventually, the cost balance equations
are solved to determine exergoeconomic parameters. The flow
chart of the computer program which indicates sequence of com-
putation and convergence algorithm is given in Fig. 3.
6. Results and discussion
The system of equations presented in the above sections and
Appendix are employed in MATLAB code and solved in hourly basis
during the day for the climatic conditions of Cairo, Egypt (30.05° N,
 A.G.M. Ibrahim et al. / Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32 29

31.25° E) (Shaltout, 1998). The still is oriented to face south. The operational parameters of the solar distillation system. Also, it
inlet temperature of the saline water is assumed as the ambient should be noted that the above values are not necessarily the opti-
temperature. mized values.
The amount of M is calculated based on daily fresh water pro- Fig. 10 presents the values of distillate cost, cdw in $/L, for the
duction of an average day for each month (Klein, 1977). The oper- different case studies. As expected, the minimum value is obtained
ating hours of the solar distillation system is calculated for sun for case 7, 0.096 $/L. The highest product cost is obtained for
duration 11 h/day and with very few cloudy days (Shaltout, 15 mm thick glass cover (case 5) and 10 cm saline water depth
1998). The properties of air and water are calculated from correla- (case 3). It is depicted that the decrease of glass cover transmissiv-
tions given by Elsayed et al. (1994), Al-Kharabsheh and Goswami ity is the most influent on distillate cost. On the other hand, the
(2004), Sharqawy et al. (2010) whereas the values of the relevant variation of cover inclination has a slight influence on the cost.
parameters used in calculations are given in Table 3. Fig. 11 compares the cost values of exergy destruction rates, C_ D
As the yield of the solar still depends mainly on the incident in $/h, for the investigated case studies. Here, the cost of exergy
solar radiation, Fig. 4 illustrates both the extraterrestrial and ter- destruction rate in the condenser; C_ D;c in $/h, is the principal source
restrial solar radiation variations along the year in Cairo. This fig- of cost of exergy destruction rate in the system. Therefore, the con-
ure indicates that the maximum solar radiation is obtained in denser efficiency should be given the priority with respect to the
June for horizontal inclination. While the maximum solar radiation
for 30° inclination is obtained in April and August. Fig. 5 depicts the
Table 5
monthly variation of still, condenser and system yield. As revealed
Matrix of case studies.
from this figure, the maximum fresh water production is 23.3 L as
obtained in the month of August. On the other hand, the minimum No dw (cm) sg (tg in mm) ab b (deg)
yield is 14.5 L in the month of December. These results are consis- Case 1 a
2 0.88 (4) 0.85 30
tent with values of solar radiation given in Fig. 4. Case 2 6 0.88 (4) 0.85 30
The variations of both energy and exergy efficiencies of the solar Case 3 10 0.88 (4) 0.85 30
Case 4 2 0.74 (10) 0.85 30
distillation system components are illustrated in Fig. 6. The energy Case 5 2 0.65 (15) 0.85 30
and exergy efficiencies of the still are approximately constant Case 6 2 0.88 (4) 0.75 30
throughout the year about 10% and 0.35%, respectively. This low Case 7 2 0.88 (4) 0.95 30
performance is attributed to large exergy losses to the surround- Case 8 2 0.88 (4) 0.85 15
Case 9 2 0.88 (4) 0.85 45
ings. In regards to the condenser, it shows higher performance
compared to the still one. The energy efficiency is nearly constant a
Base case.
with some higher values, e.g., 90.5% in winter season. Meanwhile,
the exergy efficiency is more sensitive to ambient temperature as
the maximum value is 33% in the month of July. 300
The energy and exergy efficiencies of the solar distillation sys- m_s
tem are illustrated in Fig. 7. Both energy and exergy efficiencies
Accumulated Annual Producvity (L)

m_c
250 m_t
show a similar trend. The best performance is obtained for the
summer season. The maximum values for energy and exergy effi-
200
ciencies are 27.6% and 2.8%, respectively, as obtained for the month
of August. These results are consistent with the value of highest
fresh water production in month of August as illustrated in Fig. 5. 150
Furthermore, the exergy destruction within the system, Ex_d in
kW, which is the sum of exergy destructions of the condenser, 100
Ex_d_c in kW, and still, Ex_d_s in kW; is shown in Fig. 8. It is
depicted that the maximum exergy destructions occur in the 50
months of April and September, referring to Fig. 4. Also, the largest
exergy destruction of the system is attributed to the still. The still 0
has almost 95% of the exergy destruction share in the system. This Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9
large share of exergy destruction in the still can be explained by its
low exergy efficiency which is about 0.4%. Fig. 9. The annual fresh water production of the solar distillation system.
In respect to exergoeconomic analysis, Table 4 tabulates the
results of the economic parameters for the present solar distillation
0.4
system components. Before proceeding to an optimization of the
c_dw_s
solar distillation system, it is worthy to explore the effect of some 0.35 c_dw_c
design and operational parameters; namely glass cover transmis- c_dw
0.3
Unit Cost of Product ($/L)

sivity, water depth, basin base absorptivity and inclination, on

exergoeconomic values of the solar distillation system. The set of
0.25
investigated case studies is listed in Table 5 where case 1 denotes
the reference operating condition. 0.2
The annual fresh water production (in L) for each system com-
0.15
ponent of the solar distillation system throughout the year is illus-
trated in Fig. 9. It is shown that the condenser produces the largest 0.1
fresh water around the year. Besides, case 7 (ab = 0.95) yields the
highest fresh water production, 276.3 L, that exceeds the design 0.05
values (case 1). Moreover, case 7 has the highest values of distillate
0
produced in still, m_s, and condenser, m_c; with values of 103.7 L, Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9
and 172.8 L, respectively. These results indicate that basin base
absorptivity is the predominant parameter among design and Fig. 10. The costs of fresh water production for different case studies.
30 A.G.M. Ibrahim et al. / Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32

12 improving of the solar distillation system. Further, this figure

C_D,s reveals that the cost of exergy destruction rates increases as saline
Cost Rate of Exergy Destrucon ($/h)

10
C_D,c water depth and cover inclination increases while it is nearly con-
C_D stant with the variation of base absorptivity and cover
transmissivity.
8
The predicted exergoeconomic costs of distillate are presented
in Fig. 12. Generally, the obtained values are quite similar to each
6
other, and the highest exergoeconomic cost is 0.089 $/J for case 6
(ab = 0.75) and case 9 (b = 45 deg). However, the values presented
4 in this figure are not the optimized ones. The exergoeconomic cost
balance equations were used to optimize the exergoeconomic cost
2 of distillate. The minimum exergoeconomic cost of distillate also
corresponds to the maximum exergy efficiency of the solar distilla-
0 tion system. Therefore, applying the optimization technique can be
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 useful to find the maximum exergy efficiency for the system.
The described solar distillation system with specifications men-
Fig. 11. The costs of exergy destruction rates for different case studies.
tioned in Tables 3 and 4 is optimized. Fig. 13 shows the variation of
distillate exergoeconomic cost, cd, against the exergy destructions
in still and condenser. The average unit product cost for the still,
0.1 cw,s, and the condenser, cw,c, are taken as constant. It is shown that,
0.09 the surface of exergoeconomic cost is approximately constant.
Exergo-economic Cost of Disllate ($/J)

Also, it is more sensitive to exergy destruction in the condenser.

0.08
Therefore, the investment of capital cost should be devoted in
0.07 design improvement of the condenser.
0.06 The optimal design point has a minimum product exergoeco-
0.05
nomic cost. The optimization of the solar distillation system leads
to 0.045 $/J as an optimum (minimum) value of unit product exer-
0.04
goeconomic cost. Table 6 compares the exergy and exergoeco-
0.03 nomic parameters of the base case and optimized systems. This
0.02 table indicates that there is improvement for the most of important
exergy parameters of the optimized solar distillation system at
0.01
component level. For the optimized system, the table reveals that
0 the exergy destruction in the condenser is decreased by 70%; while
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 the exergy destruction in the still and whole system are increased
Fig. 12. The exergoeconomic costs of fresh water for different case studies.
by 17% and 15%, respectively. Further, the cost of thermodynamic
inefficiencies (exergy destructions) in the optimized system is
decreased by 36% corresponding to the value of the current solar
distillation system. Moreover, there is about 45% improvement of
the exergoeconomic cost of the fresh water (product).

7. Conclusions

An exergoeconomic investigation is presented for an evacuated

solar distillation system that composed of still (evaporation cham-
ber) and an air-cooled condenser (fresh water chamber). This study
then covers exergetic, economic and exergoeconomic assessments
of the solar distillation system. The main findings of this study are
listed as follows:

 The present solar distillation system provides the best perfor-

mance in the summer season. The maximum values for energy
and exergy efficiencies are 27.6% and 2.8%, respectively, as
obtained for the month of August.
 The largest exergy destruction of the system occurs in the still
Fig. 13. Variation of distillate exergoeconomic cost. and accounts for 95% of the total exergy destruction of the
system.

Table 6
Exergoeconomic parameters for the base case and optimized solar distillation system.

Component/system Exd (kW) CD ($/h) cd ($/J)

Case 1 Opt. Case 1 Opt. Case 1 Opt.
Still 385.6 450 2.6 3.6 – –
Condenser 5.98 1.8 6.3 2.1 – –
System 391.58 451.8 8.9 5.7 0.082 0.045
 A.G.M. Ibrahim et al. / Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32
 For the optimized solar distillation system, the cost of exergy
destructions is decreased by 36%. Besides, there is about 45%
improvement of the exergoeconomic cost of the fresh water.
Recommendations
The cost of exergy destruction is subtle to the variation of water
depth and cover inclination. Moreover, the exergoeconomic cost of
distillate is more sensitive to exergy destruction in condenser
which implies that the condenser efficiency should be given the
priority with respect to the improving of the desalination system
by increasing the capital investment. This can be achieved by add-
ing more attached fins and implementation of water cooling
instead of air cooling.
Appendix A. Appendix
The solar distillation system heat interactions mentioned in
Table 1 are defined as follows:
_ rad;wg ¼ eeff Ab ððTw þ 273Þ4  ðTgi þ 273Þ4 Þ
Q ðA-1Þ
Q_ g ¼ qg IT Ag þ Q_ conv;ga þ Q_ rad;ga þ Q_ cond ðA-2Þ
_ conv;
Q g a ¼ ho Ag ðTgo  Ta Þ ðA-3Þ
_ rad;ga ¼ eg rAg ððTgo þ 273Þ4  ðTsky þ 273Þ4 Þ
Q ðA-4Þ
_ cond ¼ m
Q _ fg hfg ðA-5Þ
_ bw ¼ Q_ conv;b
Q w þ Q_ rad;bw þ Q_ cond;bw ðA-6Þ
Q_ conv;bw ¼ hw Ab ðTb  Tw Þ ðA-7Þ
_ rad;bw ¼ eeff rAb ððTb þ 273Þ4  ðTw þ 273Þ4 Þ
Q ðA-8Þ
_ cond;bw ¼ kw Ab ðTb  Tw Þ
Q ðA-9Þ
dw
_ s ¼ hs As ðTs  Ta Þ
Q ðA-10Þ
_ b ¼ hb Ab ðTb  Ta Þ
Q ðA-11Þ
_ c ¼ m_ fc ðhfg þ 0:68Cfw ðTw  Tf ÞÞ ¼ 2lc kc ðTci  Tco Þ
Q
lnðrco =rci Þ
¼ ½hco NAfin;sides gfin þ hco Ab ðTco  Ta Þ ðA-12Þ
where the sky temperature, Tsky, and the transmissivity of saline
water, sw, are calculated using the relations given in Elsayed et al.
(1994) and Ho-Ming and Nien-Tung, 1990, respectively. The con-
vective heat transfer coefficients; hw, ho, hb, hs, hc and hco are calcu-
lated using related correlations in Ranjan and Kaushik (2013),
Incropera et al. (2007), Rohsenow et al. (1998). The fin efficiency,
gfin , is calculated as outlined in Rohsenow et al. (1998).
References
Abakr, Y.A., Ismail, A.F., 2005. Theoretical and experimental investigation of a novel
multistage evacuated solar still. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 127, 381–385.
Ahsan, A., Imteaz, M., Thomas, U.A., Azmi, M., Rahman, A., Nik Daud, N.N., 2014.
Parameters affecting the performance of a low cost solar still. Appl. Energy 114,
924–930.
Al-Hussaini, H., Smith, I.K., 1995. Enhancing of solar still productivity using vacuum
technology. Energy Convers. Manage. 36, 1047–1051.
Al-Karaghoulia, A.A., Alnaser, W.E., 2004. Performances of single and double basin
solar-stills. Appl. Energy 78, 347–354.
31
Al-Kharabsheh, S., Goswami, D.Y., 2004. Theoretical analysis of a water desalination
system using low-grade solar heat. ASME J. Solar Energy Eng. 126, 774–780.
Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., Moran, M., 1996. Thermal Design and Optimization. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bemporad, G.A., 1995. Basic hydrodynamic aspects of a solar energy based
desalination process. Sol. Energy 54, 125–134.
Bhardwaj, R., Kortenaar, M.V., Mudde, R.F., 2015. Maximized production of water by
increasing area of condensation surface for solar distillation. Appl. Energy 154,
480–490.
Cooper, P.I., 1973. The maximum efficiency of single effect solar stills. Sol. Energy
15, 205–217.
Dev, R., Abdul-Wahab, S.A., Tiwari, G.N., 2011. Performance study of the inverted
absorber solar still with water depth and total dissolved solid. Appl. Energy 88,
252–264.
Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2013. Exergy: Energy, Environment, and Sustainable
Development. Elsevier.
El-Dessouky, H.T., Ettouney, H.M., 2002. Fundamentals of Salt Water Desalination.
Elsevier.
Elsayed, M.M., Taha, I.S., Sabbagh, J.A., 1994. Design of Solar Thermal System.
Scientific Publishing Center.
El-Sebaii, A.A., El-Naggar, M., 2017. Year round performance and cost analysis of a
finned single basin solar still. Appl. Therm. Eng. 110, 787–794.
El-Sebaii, A.A., Al-Ghamdi, A.A., Al-Hazmi, F.S., Faidah, A.S., 2009. Thermal
performance of a single basin solar still with PCM as a storage medium. Appl.
Energy 86, 1187–1195.
Esfahani, I.J., Ataei, A., Shetty, V., Oh, T., Park, J.H., Yoo, C., 2012. Modeling and
genetic algorithm-based multi-objective optimization of the MED-TVC
desalination system. Desalination 292, 87–104.
Estahbanati, M.R., Feilizadeh, M., Jafarpur, K., Feilizadeh, M., Rahimpour, M.R., 2015.
Experimental investigation of a multi-effect active solar still: the effect of the
number of stages. Appl. Energy 137, 46–55.
Estahbanati, M.R., Ahsan, A., Feilizadeh, M., Jafarpur, K., Ashrafmansouri, S.,
Feilizadeh, M., 2016. Theoretical and experimental investigation on internal
reflectors in a single-slope solar still. Appl. Energy 165, 537–547.
Evans, B.E., Crellin, G.L., Tribus, M., 1980. Chapter 1, Thermoeconomic
considerations of sea water demineralization. In: Spiegler K.S., Laird, A.D.K.
(Eds.), Principles of Desalination, second ed., Academic Press.
Feilizadeh, M., Estahbanati, M.R., Jafarpur, K., Roostaazad, R., Feilizadeh, M.,
Taghvaei, H., 2015. Year-round outdoor experiments on a multi-stage active
solar still with different numbers of solar collectors. Appl. Energy 152, 39–46.
Ho-Ming, Yeh., Nien-Tung, Ma., 1990. Energy balances for upward-type, double-
effect solar stills. Energy 15, 1161–1169.
Ibrahim, A.G.M., Dincer, I., 2015. A solar desalination system: exergetic performance
assessment. Energy Convers. Manage. 101, 379–392.
Ibrahim, A.G.M., Elshamarka, S.E., 2015. Performance study of a modified basin type
solar still. Sol. Energy 118, 397–409.
Ibrahim, A.G.M., Allam, E.E., Elshamarka, S.E., 2015. A modified basin type solar still:
experimental performance and economic study. Energy 93, 335–342.
Incropera, DeWitt, Bergman, Lavine, 2007. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer.
John Wiley & Sons.
Kalogirou, S.A., 2005. Seawater desalination using renewable energy sources. Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci. 31, 242–281.
Kianifar, A., Heris, S.Z., Mahian, O., 2012. Exergy and economic analysis of a
pyramid-shaped solar water purification system: active and passive cases.
Energy 38, 31–36.
Klein, S.A., 1977. Calculation of monthly average insolation on tilted surfaces. Sol.
Energy 4, 325–329.
Kumar, S., Tiwari, G.N., 2011. Analytical expression for instantaneous exergy
efficiency of a shallow basin passive solar still. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 50, 2543–2549.
Lattemann, S., 2010. Development of an Environmental Impact Assessment and
Decision Support System for Seawater Desalination Plants. CRC Press.
Micale, G., Rizzuti, L., Cipollina, A., 2009. Seawater Desalination Conventional and
Renewable Energy Processes. Springer.
Murugavel, K.K., Sivakumar, S., Ahamed, J.R., Chockalingam, S.K., Srithar, K., 2010.
Single basin double slope solar still with minimum basin depth and energy
storing materials. Appl. Energy 87, 514–523.
Nishikawa, H., Tsuchiya, T., Narasaki, Y., Kamiya, I., Sato, H., 1998. Triple effect
evacuated solar still system for getting fresh water from seawater. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 18, 1067–1075.
Petela, R., 2003. Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation. Sol. Energy 74, 469–488.
Ranjan, K.R., Kaushik, S.C., 2013. Energy, exergy and thermo-economic analysis of
solar distillation systems: a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 27, 709–723.
Rohsenow, W., Hartnett, J.P., Cho, Y.I., 1998. Handbook of Heat Transfer. McGraw-
Hill Book Company.
Sayyaadi, H., Saffari, A., Mahmoodian, A., 2010. Various approaches in optimization
of multi effects distillation desalination systems using a hybrid meta-heuristic
optimization tool. Desalination 254 (1–3), 138–148.
Shaltout, M., 1998. Egyptian solar radiation atlas. Geography Institute, Egypt.
Sharqawy, M.H., Lienhard, J.H., Zubair, S.M., 2010. Thermophysical properties of
seawater: a review of existing correlations and data. Desal. Water Treat. 16,
354–380.
Sharshir, S.W., Yang, N., Peng, G., Kabeel, A.E., 2016. Factors affecting solar stills
productivity and improvement techniques: a detailed review. Appl. Therm. Eng.
100, 267–284.
Siegel, R., Howell, J.R., 1992. Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer. Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation.
32 A.G.M. Ibrahim et al. / Solar Energy 151 (2017) 22–32

Singh, D.B., Tiwari, G.N., 2017. Exergoeconomic, enviroeconomic and productivity
analyses of basin type solar stills by incorporating N identical PVT compound
parabolic concentrator collectors: a comparative study. Energy Convers.
Manage. 135, 129–147.
Sriram, V., Hansen, R.S., Murugavel, K.K., 2013. Experimental study on a low
pressure solar still. Appl. Solar Energy 49, 137–141.
Tiwari, G.N., Singh, H.N., Tripathi, R., 2003. Present status of solar distillation. Sol.
Energy 75, 367–373.
Tiwari, G.N., Yadav, J.K., Singh, D.B., Al-Helal, I.M., Abdel-Ghany, A.M., 2015.
Exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analyses of partially covered photovoltaic
flat plate collector active solar distillation system. Desalination 367, 186–196.
Torchia-Nunez, J.C., Porta-Gandara, M.A., Cervantes-de Gortari, J.G., 2008. Exergy
analysis of a passive solar still. Renew. Energy 33, 608–616.
Tsatsaronis, G., 1993. Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of energy
systems. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 19, 227–257.