Accepted Manuscript

Productivity enhancement of solar still by using porous absorber with bubble-wrap

insulation

T. Arunkumar, A.E. Kabeel, Kaiwalya Raj, David Denkenberger, Ravishankar

Sathyamurthy, P. Ragupathy, R. Velraj

PII: S0959-6526(18)31545-2

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.199

Reference: JCLP 13056

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 14 January 2018

Accepted Date: 23 May 2018

Please cite this article as: T. Arunkumar, A.E. Kabeel, Kaiwalya Raj, David Denkenberger,
Ravishankar Sathyamurthy, P. Ragupathy, R. Velraj, Productivity enhancement of solar still by
using porous absorber with bubble-wrap insulation, Journal of Cleaner Production (2018), doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.199

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Graphical Abstract

insulation front view, and (b) bottom view

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Productivity enhancement of solar still by using porous absorber with bubble-wrap

2 insulation
3 T. Arunkumar*1, A.E. Kabeel*2, Kaiwalya Raj1, David Denkenberger3, Ravishankar
4 Sathyamurthy2,4,5, P. Ragupathy6, R. Velraj1
5 1Institute
for Energy Studies, CEG, Anna University, Chennai-600 025, Tamilnadu, India
6 2Department of Mechanical Power Engineering, Tanta University, Egypt
7 3Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN,

8 USA
9 4Department of Mechanical Engineering, S.A. Engineering College, Chennai, Tamilndu, India

10 5Centre for excellence in energy and nano technology, S.A. Engineering College, Chennai,

11 Tamilndu, India
12 6Aksheyaa College of Engineering, Pulidivakkam, Kancheepuram-603 314, Tamilnadu, India

13
14 Abstract
15 The present work involves a solar water de-salting system with carbon impregnated foam
16 (CIF) with bubble-wrap (BW) insulation for fresh water productivity enhancement. The said
17 solar water de-salting system is single slope solar still (SSSS) of area 0.50 m2. Four identical
18 SSSSs were constructed and the performance was evaluated in the same climatic conditions
19 of Chennai (13.08°N latitude, 80.27°E longitude). The CIF of diameter 0.17 m and thickness
20 of 0.015 m was allowed to float on the water surface. Since the CIF was open pore and
21 hydrophilic, the floating absorbers acted as thermal storage and increased the evaporative
22 surface area of the basin. The temperature distributions on the floating absorbers are
23 investigated with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. The result shows that the
24 simulation of temperature distribution has good agreement with experimentally recorded
25 data. Three modes of operation were tested: (i) SSSS without insulation, (ii) SSSS with BW
26 insulation and (iii) SSSS-CIF with BW insulation. The results were compared with a
27 conventional solar still (CSS) with sawdust insulation. The climatic parameters like wind,
28 ambient temperature, solar radiation and internal temperatures of the SSSS were measured at
29 frequent intervals of time. The water quality tests were carried out and their results were

1Corresponding author: kabeel6@hotmail.com (AE. Kabeel), tarunkumarsolar@gmail.com (T.

Arunkumar)
kaiwalya.raj@gmail.com (Kaiwalya Raj), david.denkenberger@gmail.com (David
Denkenberger), raviannauniv23@gmail.com (Ravishankar Sathyamurthy),
mail2raguceg@gmail.com (P. Ragupathy), and velraj@gmail.com (R. Velraj).

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

30 compared with rain water samples. The results showed that the productivity of the SSSS
31 without insulation, SSSS with BW insulation, SSSS-CIF with BW insulation and CSS with
32 sawdust insulation are 1.9 l/m2/day, 2.3 l/m2/day, 3.1 l/m2/day and 2.2 l/m2/day, respectively.
33 Keywords: single slope solar still; carbon impregnated foam; bubble wrap, desalination
34
35 1. Introduction
36 Prof. Stephen Hawking says that people must colonize another planet in next 100
37 years due to serious climate change, population growth and overdue asteroid strikes (Kharpal
38 and Arjun 2017). At the same time, ground water levels are decreasing at an accelerating rate
39 (Shiao et al. 2015). It is our responsibility to bring clean water to the next generation. A
40 sustainable way of producing fresh water is solar desalination with brackish water input with
41 minimal CO2 emissions. Solar stills are very well studied over last 30 years by scientists
42 worldwide. The basic idea is sunlight passing through a clear cover and being absorbed by a
43 black basin containing salty water. This heats the water, which evaporates and then
44 condenses on the cooler cover above. The pure water drains off and is collected. This
45 technology is old but effective for the present and future scenarios in remote places.
46 Renewable energy is a cleaner way of producing desalinated water in remote and arid regions
47 (Koroneos et al. 2007). Chafidz et al. (2016) designed and developed the portable and hybrid
48 solar-powered distillation system for generating freshwater in arid regions and coastal areas
49 in Saudi Arabia. The result concluded that the fresh water output from the sustainable solar-
50 powered distillation system was 11.53 L/h.
51 Manokar et al. (2018) experimentally studied a photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) solar still
52 varying two parameters: (i) with and without insulation, and (ii) with and without water flow
53 over the cover. The dimension of the solar still was 1810 mm × 920 mm × 150 mm. The
54 basin of the solar still consisted of a polycrystalline PV panel of efficiency of 13-16%. The
55 result concluded that the sustainable production of an inclined solar panel solar still with side
56 wall insulation was 7.3 kg/m2/day. Abujazar et al. (2018) tested a stepped solar still for sea
57 water desalination. A cascaded forward neural network (CFNN) was also developed for
58 predicting the productivity of the distillation. The result was that the CFNN had more
59 accurate productivity results than the methods of root mean square error (RMSE), mean
60 absolute percentage error (MAPE) and mean bias error (MBE). Kabeel et al. (2018)
2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

61 experimentally studied graphite in the basin of a solar still. The dimensions of the solar still
62 was 112cm×76cm. The result was that the solar still with graphite sheet gives a yield of 7.73
63 l/m2/day, which is higher than that of the conventional solar still (4.41 l/m2/day). Kabeel et
64 al. (2017) experimentally studied the modified pyramid type solar still with phase change
65 material in the v-corrugated absorber. Two identical solar stills are designed and constructed
66 for experiments. The result concluded that the PCM equipped v-corrugated absorber solar
67 still demonstrates a productivity of 6.6 l/m2/day versus a conventional pyramid solar still of
68 3.5 l/m2/day.
69 Velmurugan et al. (2008) conducted experiments in a single basin solar still with
70 sponge cubes, a wick and fins. In this work, 450 sponges of dimensions 20 mm×35 mm×35
71 mm were used. Also five fins with the dimensions of 35 mm×900 mm×1 mm were used in
72 the basin. The results showed that the solar still with fins enhanced the productivity. Kannan
73 et al. (2014) studied a solar absorption still with different absorbing materials in the basin.
74 The materials used were sponges, gravel, sand, and black rubber pieces. The results showed
75 that the combination of vapor absorption solar still with sponge, sand, and black rubber
76 pieces enhanced the system productivity. Samuel et al. (2016) conducted experiments on a
77 solar still with low cost energy storage materials. The absorbing materials used were spheres
78 and different colored sponges. Each sphere was filled with 127 g of rock salt. The test results
79 showed that the solar still with spheres enhanced the system performance and gave the
80 highest productivity of 3.7 kg/m2/day.
81 An innovative desalination technique was Ghasemi et al. (2014) experimentally
82 testing a double layer structure with bubble-wrap (BW) insulation to enhance steam
83 generation under concentrated solar illumination of 10 kW/m2. They used an exfoliated
84 graphite layer of thickness 5 mm placed on carbon foam of 10 mm thickness. Both graphite
85 and carbon foams are hydrophilic in nature to promote capillary rise of water to the top
86 surface. The result showed that the combination of graphite layer and carbon foam yields
87 solar thermal conversion efficiency of 85%, while generating steam in open air. Sharshir et
88 al. (2017) experimentally studied a modified single slope solar still with graphite flakes in
89 the basin. The modifications were graphite nano particles, phase change materials and top
90 cover cooling. Three identical solar stills were designed and tested in the same climatic
91 conditions. The results show that the combined effect of graphite flakes, phase change
3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

92 materials and cover cooling enhanced the system productivity by 73.8%. Dev et al. (2011)
93 studied an inverted absorber solar still that directs sunlight to the underside of the water
94 basin. This has the advantage of the sunlight not heating the clear cover with its absorption as
95 in a simple still. This author also studied a single slope solar still, and for both stills varied
96 water depths and total dissolved solids. The results show that the inverted absorber enhanced
97 the solar still productivity.
98 Sathyamurthy et al. (2017) reviewed the integration of collectors into various solar
99 still designs to augment the productivity. The top cover cooling effects of different solar still
100 designs were reviewed by Omara et al. (2017). Different water and air flow cooling
101 techniques were investigated. Based on the validation, the air flow and water flow over the
102 tubular and single slope solar still (SSSS) enhanced the productivity. The flow of water/air
103 affects the glass cover temperature and increases the temperature difference (Tw-Tg). Kabeel
104 et al. (2017) reviewed the three important heat exchange enhancements in solar stills. They
105 are (1) heat transfer through PCM, (2) different absorbing materials and (3) cooling
106 techniques on the top cover.
107 Mahian et al. (2017) experimentally studied a solar still with SiO2 and Cu water based
108 nanofluids. Two identical flat plate collectors (FPCs) were connected with a SSSS’s heat
109 exchanger in series mode. After heating, a pump moved the nano fluids into the SSSS via
110 pipes to enhance the heat transfer as well as productivity. Two different size of nanoparticles
111 (7 nm and 40 nm), two depths of basin water (4 cm and 8 cm) and two mass flow rates (0.04
112 kg/s and 0.12 kg/s) were examined. A mathematical model was also developed and validated
113 with experimental results. It was found that the Cu water based nanofluids had higher
114 evaporation rate than SiO2 nanofluids. Vinothkumar and Kasturi Bai (2008) experimentally
115 studied a SSSS for tap water and sea water distillation. The physical and chemical water
116 quality test results were that the water quality were compliant with the United States
117 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard.
118 Many researchers tested solar stills with different absorbing materials. Absorbing
119 materials play a significant role in increasing the evaporation surface area as well as basin
120 internal thermal storage. Examples include solar stills with dye in the basin conducted by
121 Sodha et al. (1980); Dutt et al. (1989) studied wick on the basin, Minasian and Al-karaghouli
122 (1995); Shukla and Sorayan (2005); Janarthanan et al. (2005); Rajaseenivasan et al. (2015);
4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

123 Kabeel (2009); Sakthivel et al. (2010); Srivastava and Agrawal (2013); El-Sebaii and
124 Shalaby (2015); Janarthanan et al. (2006); Hansen et al. (2015), charcoal pieces, Okeke et
125 al. (1990), rubber scraps by Al-Sulttani et al. (2017), internal reflectors, Estahbanti et al.
126 (2016); Hiroshi (2011), sponge cubes Hijleh et al. (2003); Arjunan et al. (2011); Bhardwaj et
127 al. (2015), porous basin Madani and Zaki (1995), nano composite energy storage
128 Elfasakhany (2016) and presence of baffles El-Sebaii (2006); Ravishankar et al. (2015).
129 Setoodeh et al. (2011) studied the heat transfer coefficient of a solar still using computational
130 fluid dynamics (CFD). The result were that the simulated results were in good agreement
131 with experiments. Khare et al. (2017) investigated the performance of a single slope solar
132 still using CFD. The simulation result of water temperature and productivity was in
133 agreement with the experiments.
134 The present paper is the first time that recyclable BW has been used as an insulation
135 material for a solar still. BW insulation is a very good insulator due to presence of small air
136 pockets. For future work, BW could be a good insulation material for other low temperature
137 solar thermal applications. Carbon impregnated foam (CIF) can be manufactured with a
138 polyurethane open pore foam that has carbon particles coating the interior surfaces. In the
139 present work, CIFs are tested in a SSSS with BW as an insulating material. The temperature
140 distribution of the floating absorber is investigated with a CFD analysis. Based on the review
141 of various solar still designs, the testing of a solar still with BW insulation had not been
142 conducted before (the above cited BW study was for steam production). In this experimental
143 work, four identical solar stills were constructed and tested under the same climatic
144 conditions. Three modes of operation were studied experimentally: (i) SSSS without
145 insulation, (ii) SSSS with BW, and (iii) SSSS-CIF with BW. The results are compared with a
146 conventional solar still (CSS) with sawdust insulation (Mohamad et al. 1995) and
147 conclusions are drawn.
148
149 2. Materials and Methods
150 The solar stills were designed and tested at the Institute for Energy Studies, Anna
151 University, Chennai, India during the month of April to June, 2017. Four SSSSs of
152 horizontal dimensions 0.71 m × 0.71 m were designed. The material used for the making of
153 solar still is galvanized iron and coated with black paint (solar absorptivity αb ~0.95). The
5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

154 SSSS was initialized at 3 cm water depth each morning. The cover material was glass (3 mm
155 thickness, αg=0.05, and εg=0.94), and its hydrophilic property prevented distilled water from
156 falling back into the basin. It is not advisable to pour the saline water by opening the top
157 cover and closing it again because there would be significant radiative, convective, and
158 evaporative losses. Therefore, a fill port was used instead. Four pieces of CIFs floated on the
159 water surface to increase the evaporation area of the basin. The details of the foam absorber
160 are shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 2 (a-c) shows photographic views of the foam absorbers (a) top
161 view, (b) side view and (c) zoomed-in view. Generally, CIFs are used in water purifiers and
162 fish tank filters. The radius of the CIFs is 0.085 m. The total volume of the four CIFs is 1028
163 cm3 (See Table 1). The sides and bottom of the SSSS walls are properly insulated with BW
164 (Ghasemi et al. 2014) of thickness 30 mm (Khalifa and Hamood 2009). The visible
165 transmittance of the BW sheet was 80% (Ni et al. 2016). The thermocouples were placed at
166 representative places in the solar stills to record the temperature of the various segments. The
167 parameters including water temperature (Tw), internal air temperature (Tair), inner cover
168 temperature (Tic), and carbon impregnated foam temperature (TCIF) are measured with PT-
169 100 (RTD sensing devices) with an accuracy of ±0.1°C. The HP-Agilent 34970A, Data
170 Acquisition System (DAS) with an accuracy of ±1°C was used to record and log the solar
171 radiation (Pyranometer- HUKSEFLUX CP02), at a scanning rate of 1 minute throughout the
172 experiment (Fig. 3). The wind velocity was measured by using a digital anemometer (AVM-
173 03) of accuracy ±2%. A total dissolved solids (TDS) meter (TDS-3 & ±2%), electrical
174 conductivity (EC) meter (VKTECH & ±2%), and pH meter (Hanna pH & ±0.1pH) were used
175 to test the water quality from the solar still. A digital weighing balance (Healthsense, ±0.1kg)
176 was used to calculate the water holding capacity of foams and sponge. Table. 2 summarizes
177 the list of instruments used and their accuracy values. A plastic rectangular strip of length of
178 0.75 m was used to collect the condensed water on the inner glass cover. Four clean
179 BorosilTM measuring jars were used to collect the fresh water from the strip. At the end of
180 each day, the top covers of the solar stills were wiped clean with PVA sponges. The
181 schematic view of the four solar still designs is shown in Fig. 4 (A-D). The BW insulation
182 wrap over the solar still (top and bottom) is shown in Fig. 5 (a-b). Fig. 6 shows the pictorial
183 view of the SSSS designs on the open terrace. A view of the foam absorber in the solar still is
184 shown in Fig. 7 (a-c).
6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

185
186 3. Mathematical model
187 The following steps outline the simulation of the CIF in the solar still. Here, the
188 steady state temperature distribution of the CIF is studied with an energy equation. The
189 continuity equations and momentum equations are neglected because there is no flow in the
190 CIF absorber.
191
192 3.1. Energy equation

193 (  E )  .keff T  S h (1)
t
194 where ρ is the density, keff is the effective conductivity and Sh is the heat source.
195
196 3.2 Boundary and initial conditions
197 The side walls were assumed to be adiabatic; hence no heat losses occur in solar still to
198 ambient (See Table 3). In addition there is no leakage in the system. The physical properties
199 of solids, and liquids such as specific heat, thermal conductivity and density were taken as
200 constant. Further assumptions included that there is no temperature gradient across the basin
201 water and glass cover of the solar still. A grid independence study has been performed and
202 analyzed. The convergence criteria for the computational solution are determined and set as
203 10-6 for the governing equations.
204 The radiative heat transfer from CIF to glass is given by Setoodeh et al. (2011)
205 hr ,CIF   CIF . (TCIF  273) 2  (Tg  273) 2  TCIF  Tg  546  (2)

206 Note that hr radiation heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K), ε is the emissivity, σ is the Stefan-
207 Boltzmann constant (5.670×10-8W/m2 K4), T is the temperature of CIF (°C), and Tg is the
208 glass cover temperature (°C).
209 Where
1 1
 CIF   1
g  CIF
210
211 Heat gained by the CIF is given in the equation by
dTCIF
212 mCIF C p CIF .  I CIF g ACIF  qloss  qr ,CIF  g (3)
dt

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

213 Note that mCIF is the mass of the floating absorber, Cp is specific heat capacity, T is
214 temperature (°C), q is the heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K), α is the CIF absorptivity, τ is the
215 transmissivity of glass, and ACIF is the area of the CIF.
216
The convective heat transfer coefficient between water and glass is estimated as,

Tw  273.15  pw  pg  
1/3

217 hc , w g  0.884 Tw  Tg   
  268900  pw  
(4)
218
The evaporative heat transfer coefficient between water and glass is given as
219 Setoodeh et al. (2011)
,
  Pw  Pg  
220 he , w g  16.27 103  hc , w g  
 Tw  Tg   (5)
221
Where
 5144 
 25.314  
Tw  273.15 
222 pw  e 

 5144 
 25.314  
 T  273.15 
223 pg  e  g

224
Where Pw and Pg are partial pressure of water and glass (N/m2).

225
226 4. Tested water quality analysis
227 The water quality was tested in situ. Three important parameters including TDS
228 (ppm), electrical conductivity (μS/cm) and pH were tested. The tap water is feed in to the
229 solar still (Feilizadeh et al. 2011). The water samples were collected before and after
230 treatment from the solar still and the results are shown in Table. 4. A TDS meter, pH meter
231 and EC meter were used to test the water samples instantly. Before desalination, the level of
232 TDS was 927 ppm. After desalination, it was reduced to 10 ppm (Arunkumar et al. 2012)
233 Before treatment, the level of EC was 867 μS/cm. After treatment, it was reduced to
234 34μS/cm. The level of pH before and after treatment was 6.4 and 7.4, respectively. The rain
235 water samples were collected on 16 June 2017 in a clean measuring jar. The TDS, EC and
236 pH of the tested rain water samples were 36 ppm, 16 μS/cm and 6.5. The tested results of
237 desalinated sample and rain water sample are acceptable for drinking (Samuel et al. 2016).
238
8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

239 5. Results and Discussion

240 The experimental part of this study includes solar radiation, ambient temperature,
241 temperature records in the still, CFD analysis, water-holding capacity of materials and fresh
242 water productivity.
243
244 5.1 Effect of climatic conditions
245 Fig. 8 shows the variation of solar radiation and ambient temperature with respect to
246 time. The fresh water productivity of any solar desalination unit depends upon the solar
247 radiation and ambient temperature. The highest recorded solar radiation over the tilted solar
248 still and ambient temperature (on 2017.06.02) were 842 W/m2 and 41.7°C, respectively. The
249 average solar insolation for Chennai (13.0821°N Latitude & 80.2702°E Longitude) is good
250 from February to May (See Appendix 1). The 13° South inclined top cover directly faces the
251 sun at solar noon on March 21. In Chennai, the sun position in the sky at solar noon varies
252 from 36.45° South to 10.45° North in Dec 21 and June 21, respectively. As far as the solar
253 radiation over the tilted surface is concerned, the best time to conduct the experiment should
254 be from February to April. But on the other hand, due to greater day length from March-
255 June (See Appendix 2), it is better to perform the experiment in these months. The higher
256 the direct solar radiation is, the higher the yield is (Sahota et al. 2017). Although June has the
257 greatest day length, due to clouds, the average intensity of solar radiation is less. It is
258 concluded from our observation that the best time to perform the desalination experiment in
259 Chennai is from March to May. The wind conditions were also recorded during the
260 experiment. There are many factors that affect the solar stills productivity such as water
261 depth, thickness of the glass, height of the walls, and angle of inclination. The effect of
262 ambient temperature and wind also plays a significant role in the productivity.
263 5.2 Variation of recorded solar still temperature
264 Fig. 9 (a) shows the results of measured water temperature (Tw), internal air
265 temperature (Tair), and inner cover temperature (Tic) of SSSS without insulation (See Table.5)
266 The recorded maximum of Tw, Tair, and Tic are 59.1°C, 55.5°C, and 50.5°C, respectively. Fig.
267 9 (b) shows the measured temperature profile of SSSS with BW insulation (See Table 6).
268 The maximum recorded temperatures of Tw, Tair, and Tic are 70.3°C, 69°C, and 65.7°C,
269 respectively. Fig. 9 (c) shows the variation of Tw, Tair, Tic, and TCIF of SSSS-CIF with BW
9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

270 insulation (See Table 7). The maximum reached Tw and TCIF are 70.4°C & 71.9°C. Fig. 9 (d)
271 shows the temperature variations of CSS with wooden insulation (See Table 8). The recorded
272 maximum of Tw, Tair, and Tic are 68.7°C, 66°C, and 60°C, respectively. Based on the results
273 of all the experiments, the SSSS-CIF with BW insulation shows the highest temperature. The
274 recorded temperature profile of the conventional single slope solar still for similar ambient
275 conditions, area and with wooden insulation is shown in Fig. 9(d). It clearly shows that the
276 solar still with insulation increase the temperature of water by 23% as compared to solar still
277 without insulation as the loss of heat from the basin to the surrounding is reduced.
278 The hourly variation in evaporative heat transfer coefficient (hew) for the tested
279 configurations is shown in Fig 10. The evaporative heat transfer coefficient is calculated
280 using Equation (4) and (5). It can be observed that the solar still without any kind of
281 insulation has ~1/3 lower evaporative coefficient inside the basin as compared to solar still
282 with insulation and CIF porous medium. A maximum of 47.5 W/m2K evaporative heat
283 transfer coefficient is observed in the case of solar still with CIF and bubble wrap insulation.
284 5.3 CFD simulation results
285 The CFD analysis was carried out using ANSYS Fluent 15.0. The mesh geometry of
286 the CIF is shown in Fig. 11. The simulation of the floating absorber temperature distribution
287 is predicted by using CFD analysis (Fig. 12). The major objective of this CFD simulation is
288 to analyze the temperature distribution on the floating absorber. The time taken to complete
289 the simulation process is 4-5 hours. The parameters used to solve the temperature distribution
290 on the foam are given in Table. 9. The experimental and simulation result of maximum
291 recorded floating absorber temperature is 71.5°C and 73°C, respectively. The temperature
292 profiles of the CIFs are investigated with CFD analysis and the simulation results show good
293 agreement with the measured result.
294 5.4 Fresh water productivity in the solar stills
295 Fig. 13 shows the fresh water productivity of solar still designs correlated with solar
296 radiation. The productivity of the SSSS without insulation, SSSS with BW insulation, SSSS-
297 CIF with BW insulation and CSS with sawdust insulation are 1.9 l/m2/day, 2.3 l/m2/day, 3.1
298 l/m2/day and 2.2 l/m2/day, respectively. The SSSS-BW insulation shows a slight
299 enhancement over the CSS with wooden insulation. Normally, a wooden frame with glass
300 wool or sawdust insulation is traditionally used in SSSS. But some factors compromise the
10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

301 wooden frame and sawdust insulation. They include (i) basin leakage, (ii) leakage in fresh
302 water channel and (iii) excessive precipitation if the system is not sealed adequately.
303 5.5 Effect of BW and floating absorber
304 The BW is nothing more than pockets of air wrapped in polymer. The air inside a
305 confined space acts as a poor conductor of heat, which in turn reduces heat loss to
306 surroundings. The air inside a confined space inhibits convection. Here, the SSSS is tightly
307 packed with BW of thickness 30 mm to reduce the heat loss. Due to the heat trapped by the
308 BW insulation, Tw, Tair, and Tic and are the maximum for all the configurations. If the
309 temperature difference (∆T) between Tw and Tic is lower, this causes a decrease in
310 productivity (Arunkumar et al. 2012). The hydrophilic interconnected CIFs occupied a
311 surface area of 0.214 m2 in the 0.50 m2 basin. The advantages of the CIFs are: (i) acting as an
312 internal heat storage element, and (ii) increasing the evaporation area of the basin. The
313 interconnected CIFs consist of a large quantity of air out of the water, so their thermal
314 conductivity is low there. However, in the water, because they are hydrophilic, they fill with
315 water. Still, because it is difficult for the water to move in the pores, the thermal conductivity
316 is lower than free water. This coupled with the solar absorption increases the temperature on
317 the top side of the CIFs. The SSSS is an airtight container. The interconnected CIFs float on
318 the water surface and they increase the evaporation (the hydrophilic nature allows the
319 capillary flow of water from bottom to spreading out over the top side for ease of
320 evaporation). The water vapor condenses on the inner glass cover and trickles down due to
321 gravity. Because the CIF is hydrophilic, the wetted surface area increases above that of open
322 water (Ghasemi et al. 2014). This increases the evaporation rate, enhancing the productivity.
323 5.6 Effect of water holding capacity of foams and sponge
324 Table. 10 show the comparison of water-holding capacity of polyurethane foams,
325 PVA sponges and CIFs (Figs.14-15). Sponges are made with many holes connected
326 throughout (open pore) to hold lot of water for various applications. The air portions are
327 replaced by water when the sponges contact a water surface. Due to their hydrophilic nature,
328 the water quickly spreads throughout the sponge. The tested results of water holding capacity
329 reveals that the PVA sponge can hold more water per dry mass than the other materials. The
330 PVA sponge is physically hard when dry and becomes soft when it gets wet. Carbon foams
331 are as good at holding water. The behavior of the CIF and sponge are interesting in the
11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

332 presence of solar radiation. The top surface of the sponges seems to be dry even as it is
333 saturated with water. Therefore, more energy is needed to evaporate the water from the
334 inside of the sponge cubes. In CIFs, the structural arrangement is such that the top is wet
335 when placed in water. This shows than the CIF allows fluid movement from the bottom to
336 the top surface. So the CIFs help to ease evaporation of water and pave a path to more fresh
337 water production.
338 5.7 Cost Comparison
339 The cost of the SSSS-CIF with BW insulation is shown in Table. 11. The overall
340 assumptions are a device life of 15 years, an equivalent of 80% sunny days, and an interest
341 rate of 6%. The total cost of the fabricated solar still without insulation would have been
342 approximately 34 USD for 1 m2. With an output of 1.92 l/m2/day, this is approximately
343 0.0060 $/l water, the baseline. Adding plywood insulation increased cost by 60%, but only
344 increased output by 10%, so the water was 0.0086 $/l, which is worse than baseline. On the
345 other hand, adding BW insulation increased cost by only 5%, but increased output by 22%,
346 so the water was 0.0051 $/l, an improvement from the baseline. Finally, adding both BW
347 insulation and the CIF increased cost of the baseline by 62%, but only increased output by
348 37%, so the water was 0.0064 $/l. Therefore, the minimum cost water was produced by the
349 BW insulation without the CIF absorber.
350
351 6. Comparison of previous results with present work
352 The comparisons of different insulation materials used by the researchers are shown
353 in Table. 12. The effect of insulation thickness on the productivity is studied by Khalifa and
354 Hamood (2009). They maintained three different insulation thicknesses of 30 mm, 60 mm
355 and 100 mm. The results were that the insulation thickness plays a significant role in the
356 productivity up to a thickness of 60 mm. From the detailed review of previous results,
357 sawdust (0.08 W/m.K), glass wool (0.04 W/m.K) and plywood (0.13W/m.K) are widely used
358 in solar stills to reduce the heat loss to surroundings. Denkenberger and Pearce concluded via
359 modeling that varying the insulation thermal resistance from 1 to 4 ºC/(W/m2) changed
360 output 19% (Pearce et al. 2016). The advantages of the BW (0.02 W/m.K) insulation are low
361 cost (1 m2~0.23$) and that it is easy to wrap around the unit. The BW insulation acted as a
362 water proof layer for the solar still during rainy days. Based on the comparisons, BW
12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

363 insulation in a SSSS moderately increases the productivity of solar still, but there could
364 easily be confounding factors. Fig. 16 shows the cost per litre (CPL) of previous results
365 (Rajaseenivasan and Murugavel 2013); (El-Agouz 2014); (Omara et al. 2011); (Abdullah and
366 Badran 2008); (Ansari et al. 2013); (Fath et al. 2003); (Wassouf et al. 2011); (Suneesh et al.
367 2014); (Kabeel 2009) with single slope solar stills. It is concluded from the chart that all of
368 the embodiments tested in this paper were lower distilled water cost than previous work. The
369 lowest cost of water was with BW and no foam absorber.
370
371 7. Conclusions
372 The effect of floating absorbers and BW insulation on the SSSS is experimentally
373 tested under Indian climatic conditions. Four identical solar stills are designed and tested in
374 the same environment to reach a concrete conclusion. Three modes of operation were studied
375 experimentally: (i) SSSS without insulation, (ii) SSSS with BW insulation, and (iii) SSSS-
376 CIF with BW. The 4 pieces of CIF are floated on the water surface. The results are compared
377 with a CSS with sawdust insulation.
378  The temperature profiles of the CIFs are investigated with CFD analysis and the
379 simulation results show good agreement with the measured result.
380  The productivities of the SSSS without insulation, SSSS with BW insulation, SSSS-
381 CIF with BW insulation, and CSS were 1.9 l/m2/day, 2.3 l/m2/day, 3.1 l/m2/day and
382 2.2 l/m2/day respectively.
383  The combination of internal heat storage (CIF) and heat trap (BW) yields superior
384 performance.
385  The BW insulation enhanced the productivity by 22% over solar still without
386 insulation. The SSSS-BW-CIF combination increased the productivity of 24% over
387 SSSS with BW insulation. The SSSS with BW insulation enhanced the productivity
388 of 10% over the SSSS with wooden insulation.
389  The hydrophilic nature and interconnected carbon impregnated absorbers enhanced
390 fresh water productivity in the SSSS. The foams increase the evaporation surface area
391 of the basin.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

392  Preliminary water quality tests were conducted and the results are in the acceptable
393 range suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Indian standard
394 specification.
395  The pockets of air in the BW act as a poor thermal conductor and restrict the heat loss
396 to surroundings. This is easier to use than other traditional alternatives.
397  Solar desalination is a low global warming impact method of producing safe drinking
398 water.
399
400 8. Implications for theory and practice of cleaner production/sustainability
401 In remote areas and regions, fresh water is often trucked in. This consumes finite fossil fuels
402 and produces greenhouse gases. A much cleaner way of producing freshwater is with solar
403 energy. A promising way of doing this is with solar stills. This paper shows a promising new
404 technique to increase the productivity of solar stills.
405
406 9. Future work
407  The evaporative heat transfer from solar still as well as CIF could be simulated by
408 using CFD analysis.
409  Graphite flakes (GF) could be used to form a layer on the CIF to increase the thermal
410 conductivity.
411  Selective Copper Oxide coating could be applied on the top of CIF to reduce radiation
412 loss and increase temperature of the foam segment.
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

423 Appendix 1
424 Incident angle of beam radiation over the 13° south tilted glazing
cos   sin  sin  .cos   cos  .cos .cos  .sin  
425 cos  cos  .cos .cos   sin  .cos  .sin   (A)
 cos  .sin  .sin .sin 

426 Where θ is the incidence angle (°), ϕ is the latitude in (°), δ is the declination angle (°), γ is
427 the surface azimuth angle(°) and ω is the hour angle (°)South facing glazing angle, γ=0,
428 Incidence angle at solar noon, ω = 0
429 Then Equation (A) becomes,
430 cos   sin  .sin      cos  .cos     (B)

431 Since ϕ=β=13°, Eq. (B) becomes,

432 cos   cos  (C)
433 Declination angle,
 360 
434   23.45sin  (284  n)  (D)
 365 
435 Where δ is the declination angle (°) and n is the number of days in the year
February 22 March 22 April 22
n=53 n=80 n=112
δ=-10.87° δ=0° δ=11.93°
From Eq. (B), θ=10.87° From Eq. (B), θ=0° From Eq. (B), θ=11.93°
436
437 Angle made by the beam radiation with the normal to the glazing surface at noon are 10.87°,
438 0° and 11.93° on Feb 22, April 22 and March 22 respectively. It clearly shows that on March
439 22, the solar beam radiation at the noon will be normal to the tilted glazing.
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

447 Appendix 2
448 Day length calculation for March 22-June 22 and Dec 22.
449 Hour angle s  cos 1 ( tan  .tan  ) (E)
450 Where ωs is the hour angle corresponds to sunrise or sunset, ϕ is the latitude in (°) and δ is
451 the declination angle (°).
 360 
452   23.45sin  (284  n) 
 365 
2
453 Day length (DL)= DL  s  (F)
15
March 22 April 22 May 22 June 22 July 22 December 22
n=81 n=112 n=142 n=173 n=203 n=356
By Eq. (D), By Eq. (D), By Eq. (D), By Eq. (D), By Eq. (D), By Eq. (D),
δ=0° δ=11.93° δ=20.34° δ=23.45° δ=20.24° δ=-23.45°
By Eq. (E), By Eq. (E), By Eq.(E), By Eq.(E), By Eq.(E), By Eq.(E),
ωs=90° ωs=92.79° ωs=94.91° ωs=95.75° ωs=94.88° ωs=84.25°
By Eq.(F), By Eq.(F), By Eq.(F), By Eq.(F), By Eq.(F), By Eq.(F),
DL=12 h DL= 12 h & DL=12 h & 39 DL= 12 h & DL= 12 h & DL= 11 h &
22 min min 45 min 39 min 14 min
454
455 By calculation, it is clear that the day length will increase up to a maximum of 12 hours
456 45min on June 22 and further it will decrease. A minimum day length of 11 h 14 min is
457 calculated for December 22.
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

467 10. Nomenclature

468 A - Area (m2)
469 Cp - Specific heat capacity (J/kg.K)
470 E - Energy (J)
471 h - Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
472 I(t) - Incident solar radiation (W/m2)
473 k - Thermal conductivity (W/m.K)
474 L - Latent heat of vaporization (J/kg)
475 m - mass (kg)
476 P - Partial pressure (N/m2)
477 n - number of days
478 T - Temperature (°C)
479 V - Wind velocity (m/s)
480 q - heat transfer coefficient (W/m2.K)
481
482 Greek
483 α - Absorptivity
484 μ - Viscosity (kg/m/s)
485 ε - Emissivity
486 ρ - Density (kg/m3)
487 σ - Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.67×10-8 W/m2K4
488 τ - solar transmittance of glazing
489 ∆ - temperature difference
490 θ - incidence angle (°),
491 ϕ - latitude in (°),
492 δ - declination angle (°),
493 γ - surface azimuth angle(°),
494 ω - hour angle (°)
495
496
497 Subscripts
17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

498 amb - ambient

499 air - internal air
500 b - basin
501 c - convection
502 CIF - carbon impregnated foam
503 e - evaporation
504 eff - effective
505 g - glass
506 ic - inner cover
507 loss - loss
508 r - radiation
509 s - sunrise or sunset
510 w - water
511
512 Abbreviation
513 BW - Bubble-wrap
514 CFM - Cubic foot/minute
515 CPC - Compound parabolic concentrator
516 CPL - Cost per litre
517 CIF - Carbon impregnated foam
518 CSS - Conventional solar still
519 CFD - Computational fluid dynamics
520 DAS - Data acquisition system
521 DL - Day length
522 EC - Electrical conductivity (μS/cm)
523 GF - Graphite flake
524 PPI - Pores per inch
525 PVA - Polyvinyl Alcohol
526 RTD - Resistance temperature detector
527 SSSS - Single slope solar still
528 TDS - Total dissolved solids (ppm)
18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

529
530
531 11. Acknowledgement
532 This study received grant from University Grant Commission (UGC), Government of
533 India. Ref. No. F.4-2/2016 (BSR)/PH/14-15/0124 dated on 01 July 2016.
534
535
536 12. References
537
538 Abdullah, S., Badran, O.O., 2008. Sun tracking system for productivity enhancement of solar
539 still. Desalination 220,669-676.
540 Abu–Hijleh, B.A.K., Hamzeh M. Rababa'h., 2003. Experimental study of a solar still with
541 sponge cubes in basin. Energ. Convers. Manag. 44,1411-1418.
542 Achmad Chafidz., Esa D. Kerme., Irfan Wazeer., Yasir Khalid., Abdelhamid Ajbar., Saeed
543 M. Al-Zahrani., 2016. Design and fabrication of a portable and hybrid solar-powered
544 membrane distillation system. J Clean. Prod. 133, 631-647.
545 Ali O. Al-Sulttani., Amimul Ahsan., Ammar N. Hanoon., Rahman, A., Idrus, S., 2017.
546 Hourly yield prediction of a double-slope solar still hybrid with rubber scrapers in low-
547 latitude areas based on the particle swarm optimization technique. Appl. Energy
548 203,280-303.
549 Ansari, O., Asbik, M., Abdullah Bah., Arbaoui, A., 2013. Desalination of brackish water
550 using passive solar still with a heat energy storage system. Desalination 324,10-20.
551 Arjunan, T.V., Aybar, H.Ş., Nedunchezihan, N., 2011. Effect of sponge liner on the internal
552 heat transfer coefficients in a simple solar still. Desalin. Water Treat. 29,271-284.
553 Arunkumar, T., Jayaprakash, R., Amimul Ahsan., Denkenberger, D.C., Okundamiya, M.S.,
554 Sanjay Kumar., Aybar, H.Ş., 2012. An experimental study on hemispherical solar still.
555 Desalination 286,342-348.
556 Arunkumar, T., Velraj, R., Denkenberger, D., Ravishankar Sathyamurthy., Vinothkumar K.,
557 Porkumaran, K., Amimul Ahsan., 2016. Effect of heat removal on tubular solar
558 desalting system. Desalination 379,24-33.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

559 Arunkumar, T., Velraj. R., Denkenberger, D., Ravishankar Sathyamurthy., 2016. Influence
560 of crescent shaped absorber in water desalting system. Desalination 398,208-213.
561 Ashraj Elfasakhany., 2016. Performance assessment and productivity of a simple-type solar
562 still integrated with nano composite energy storage system. Appl. Energy 183,399-
563 407.
564 Bashart Jamil., Naiem Akhtar., 2017. Effect of specific height on the performance of a single
565 slope solar still: An experimental study. Desalination 414,73-78.
566 Bhardwaj, R., ten Kortenaar, M.V., Mudde, R.F., 2015. Maximized production of water by
567 increasing area of condensation surface for solar distillation. Appl. Energy 154,480-
568 490.
569 Bhupendra Gupta., Raghvendra Sharma., Prem Shankar., Prashant Baredar.,
570 2016.Performance enhancement of modified solar still suing a water sprinkler: An
571 experimental approach. Perspectives in Science 8,191-194.
572 Dutt. D.K., Ashok Kumar., Anand, J.D., Tiwari, G.N., 1989. Performance of a double-basin
573 solar still in the presence of dye. Appl. Energy 32,207-223.
574 El-Agouz S.A., 2014. Experimental investigation of stepped solar still with continuous water
575 circulation. Energ. Convers. Manage. 86,186-193.
576 El-Sebaii, A.A., Aboul-Enein, S., El-Bialy, E., 2006. Single basin solar still baffle suspended
577 absorber. Energ. Convers. Manag. 41,661-675.
578 El-Sebaii, A.A., Shalaby, S.M., 2015. Parametric study and heat transfer mechanisms of
579 single basin v-corrugated solar still. Desalin. Water Treat. 55,285-296.
580 Fath, H.E.S., El-Samanoudy, M., Fahmy, K., Hassabou, A., 2003. Thermal economic
581 analysis and comparison between pyramid-shaped and single-slope solar still
582 configurations. Desalination 159,69-79.
583 George Ni., Gabriel Li., Svetlana V. Boriskina., Hongxia Li., Weilin Yang., TieJun Zhang,
584 Gang Chen., 2016. Steam generation under one sun enabled by a floating structure
585 with thermal concentration. Nature Energy DOI: 10.1038/NENERGY.2016.126.
586 Hadi Ghasemi., George Ni., Amy Marie Marconnet., James Loomis., Selcuk Yerci., Nenad
587 Miljkovic., Gang Chen., 2014. Solar steam generation by heat localization. Nat.
588 Commun. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5449.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

589 Harris Samuel, D.G., Nagarajan, P.K., Ravishankar Sathyamurthy., El-Agouz S.A., Kannan,
590 E., 2016. Improving the yield of fresh water in conventional solar still using low cost
591 energy storage material. Energ. Convers. Manag. 112,125-134.
592 Janarthanan, B., Chandrasekaran, J., Kumar, S., 2005. Evaporative heat loss and heat
593 transfer for open- and closed-cycle systems of a floating tilted wick solar still.
594 Desalination 180,291-305.
595 Janarthanan, B., Chandrasekaran, J., Kumar, S., 2006. Performance of floating cum tilted-
596 wick type solar still with the effect of water flowing over the glass cover. Desalination
597 190,51-62.
598 Joe Partrik Gnanaraj, S., Ramachandran, S., David Santhosh Christopher., 2017. Enhancing
599 the design to optimize the performance of double basin solar still. Desalination
600 411,112-123.
601 Kabeel, A.E., 2009. Performance of solar still with a concave wick evaporation surface.
602 Energy 34,1504-1509.
603 Kabeel, A.E., 2009. Performance of solar still with a concave evaporation surface. Energy
604 34,1504-1509.
605 Kabeel, A.E., Arunkumar, T., Denkenberger, D.C., Ravishankar Sathyamurthy., 2017.
606 Performance enhancement of solar still through efficient heat exchange mechanism- A
607 Review. Appl. Therm. Eng. 114,815-836.
608 Kabeel, A.E., Mohamed Abdelgaied., Amr Eisa., 2018. Enhancing the performance of single
609 basin solar still using high thermal conductivity sensible heat storage materials. J
610 Clean. Prod. 183, 20-25.
611 Kabeel, A.E., Mohamed A. Teamah., Mohamed Abdelgaied., Gaml B. Abdel Aziz., 2017.
612 Modified pyramid solar still with v-corrugated absorber plate and PCM as a thermal
613 storage medium. J Clean. Prod. 161, 881-887.
614 Kamel Rabhi., Rached Nciri., Faouzi Nasri., Chaouki Ali., Habib Ben Bacha., 2017.
615 Experimental performance analysis of a modified single-basin single-slope solar still
616 with pin fins absorber and condenser. Desalination 416,86-93.
617 Kannan, R., Selvaganesan, C., Vignesh, M., Ramesh Babu, B., Fuentes, M., Vivard, M.,
618 Skyrabin, I., Srithar, K., 2014. Solar still with vapor adsorption basin: Performance
619 analysis. Renew. Energy 62,258-264.
21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

620 Karimi Estahbanti., Amimul Ahsan., Mehraz Feilizadeh., Khosrow Jafarpur., Seyedeh-Saba
621 Ashrafmansouri., Mansoor Feilizadeh., 2016. Theoretical and experimental
622 investigation on internal reflectors in a single-slope solar still. Appl. Energy 165,537-
623 547.
624 Khalifa, A.J.N., Ahmad M. Hamood., 2009. Effect of insulation thickness on the
625 productivity of basin type solar stills: An experimental verification under local climate.
626 Energ. Convers. Manag. 50,2457-2461.
627 Kharpal, Arjun. Stephan Hawking says humans must colonize another plant in 100 years or
628 face extinction,http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/05/stephen-hawking-human-extinction-
629 colonize-planet.html Accessed July 2017.
630 Koroneos, C., Dompros, A., Roumbas, G., 2007. Renewable energy driven desalination
631 system and modelling. J Clean. Prod. 15, 449-464.
632 Madani, A.A., Zaki, G.M., 1995. Yield of solar stills with porous basins. Appl. Energy
633 52,273-281.
634 Manssor Feilizadeh., Karimi Estahbanati., Khosrow Jafarpur., Keza Roostaazad., Mehrzad
635 Feilzadeh., Hamed Taghvaei., 2015. Year-round outdoor experiments on a multi-stage
636 active solar still with different numbers of solar collectors. Appl. Energy 152,39-46.
637 Minasian, A.N., Al-karaghouli, A.A., 1995. An improved solar still: The wick-basin type.
638 Energ. Convers. Manag. 36,213-217.
639 Mohamad, M.A., Soliman, S.H., Abdel-Salam., Hussein, H.M.S., 1995. Experimental and
640 financial investigation of asymmetrical solar stills with different insulation. Appl.
641 Energy 52,265-271.
642 Mohammed Shadi Abujazar, S., Suja Fatihah., Ibraahim Anwar., Kabeel, A.E., Surya Sharil.,
643 2018. Productivity modelling of a developed inclined stepped solar still system based
644 on actual performance and using a cascaded forward neural network model. J Clean.
645 Prod. 170, 147-159.
646 Muthumanokar, A., Prince Winston, D., Kabeel, A.E., Ravishankar Sathyamurthy., 2018.
647 Sustainable fresh water and power production by integrating PV panel in inclined solar
648 still. J Clean. Prod. 172, 2711-2719.

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

649 Narjes Setoodeh., Rahbar Rahimi., Abolhasan Ameri., 2011. Modeling and determination of
650 heat transfer coefficient in a single basin solar still using CFD. Desalination 268,103-
651 110.
652 Okeke, C.E., Egarievwe, S.U., Animalu, A.O.E., 1990. Effects of coal and charcoal on solar-
653 still performance. Energy 15,1071-1073.
654 Omara, Z.M., Abdullah, A.S., Kabeel, A.E., Essa, F.A., 2017. The cooling techniques of the
655 solar stills’ glass covers- A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78,176-193.
656 Omara, Z.M., Morfreh, H., Hamed, M.H., Kabeel, A.E., 2011. Performance of finned and
657 corrugated absorbers solar still under Egyptian conditions. Desalination 277, 281-287.
658 Omid Mahian., Ali Kianifar., Saeed Zeinali Heris., Dongsheng Wen., Ahmet Z. Sahin.,
659 Somchai Wongwises., 2017. Nanofluids effects on the evaporation rate in a solar still
660 equipped with a heat exchanger. Nano Energy 36,134-155.
661 Pankaj K. Srivastava., Agrawal, S.K., 2013. Experimental and theoretical analysis of single
662 sloped basin type solar still consisting of multiple low thermal inertia floating porous
663 absorbers. Desalination 311,198-205.
664 Pearce, Joshua M., and D.C. Denkenberger. Numerical simulation of the direct application of
665 compound parabolic concentrators to a single effect basin solar still." Proceedings of
666 the 2006 International Conference of Solar Cooking and Food Processing. Vol. 118.
667 2006.
668 pH in Drinking-water, World Health Organization 2007. Available:
669 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/ph_revised_2007_clean_v
670 ersion.pdf
671 Rahul Dev., Sabah Abdul-Wahab A., Tiwari, G.N., 2011. Performance study of the inverted
672 absorber solar still with water depth and total dissolved solids. Appl. Energy 88,252-
673 264.
674 Rajaseenivasan, T., Kalidasa Murugavel, K., Elango, T., 2015. Performance and exergy
675 analysis of a double basin solar still with different materials in the basin. Desalin.
676 Water Treat. 55,1786-1794.
677 Rajaseenivasan, T., Prakash, R., Vijayakumar, K., Srithar, K., 2017. Mathematical and
678 experimental investigation on the influence of basin height variation and stirring of
679 water by solar PV panels in solar still. Desalination 415,67-75.
23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

680 Rajaseenivasan. T, Murugavel K.K., 2013. Theoretical and experimental investigation on

681 double basin double slope solar still. Desalination 319,25-32.
682 Ravishankar Sathyamurthy., El-Agouz S.A, Nagarajan P.K, Subramani, J., Arunkumar, T.,
683 Mageshbabu, D., Madhu, B., Bharathwaaj, K., Prakash, N., 2017. A review of
684 integrating solar collectors to solar still. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77,1069-1097.
685 Ravishankar Sathyamurthy., Nagarajan, P.K., El-Agouz., Jaiganesh, V., Sathish Khanna, P.,
686 2015. Experimental investigation on a semi-circular trough-absorber solar still with
687 baffles for fresh water production. Energ. Convers. Manag. 97,235-242.
688 Sakthivel, M., Shanmugasundaram, S., Alwarsamy, T., 2010. An experimental study on a
689 regenerative solar still with energy storage medium-jute cloth. Desalination 264,24-31.
690 Samuel Hansen, R., Surya Narayanan, C., Kalidasa Murugavel, K., 2015. Performance
691 analysis on inclined solar still with different new wick materials and wire mesh.
692 Desalination 358,1-8.
693 Sharshir, S.W., Guilong Peng., Lirong Wu., Essa F.A., Kabeel, A.E., Nuo Yang., 2017. The
694 effects of flak graphite nanoparticles, phase change material and film cooling on the
695 solar still performance. Appl. Energy 191,358-366.
696 Shukla, S.K., Sorayan, V.P.S., 2005. Thermal modeling of solar stills: an experimental
697 validation. Renew. Energ. 30,683-699.
698 Sodha, M.S., Kumar, A., Tiwari G.N., Pandey, G.C., 1980. Effect of dye on the performance
699 of a solar still. Appl. Energy 7,147-162.
700 Suneesh, P.U., Jayaprakash, R., Arunkumar, T., David Denkenberger., 2014. Effect of air
701 flow on “V” type solar still with cotton gauze cooling. Desalination 337,1-5.
702 Tanaka Hiroshi., 2011. Solar thermal collector augmented by flat plate booster reflector:
703 Optimum inclination of collector and reflector. Appl. Energy 88,1395-1404.
704 Tien Shiao, Andrew Maddocks, Chris Carson and Emma Loizeaudx, 3 maps explain India’s
705 growing water risks, http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/02/3-maps-explain-
706 india%E2%80%99s-growing-water-risks February 26, 2015.
707 Tiwari, G.N., Tiwari, A.K., Solar distillation practice for water desalination systems. Jan
708 2008
709 Total dissolved solids in Drinking-water, World Health Organization 2003. Available:
710 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/tds.pdf
24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

711 Vaibhav Rai Khare., Abhay Pratap Singh., Hemant Kumar., Rahul Khatri., 2017. Modeling
712 and performance enhancement of single slope solar still using CFD. Energy Procedia
713 109,447-455.
714 Velmurugan, V., Gopalakrishnan, M., Raghu, R., Srithar, K., 2008. Single basin solar still
715 with fin for enhancing productivity. Energ. Convers. Manag. 49,2602-2608.
716 Vinoth Kumar, K., Kasturi Bai, R., 2008. Performance study on solar still with enhanced
717 condensation. Desalination 230,51-61.
718 Wassouf, P., Peska, T., Singh, R., Akbarzadeh, A., 2011. Novel and low cost designs of
719 portable solar stills. Desalination 276,294-302.
720 Water quality standards, WHO 2011, http://mrccc.org.au/wp-
721 content/uploads/2013/10/Water-Quality-Salinity-Standards.pdf
722

723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

742 Table. 1
743 Details of a single CIF
S.No. Parameters Values
1 Volume 257 cm3
2 Diameter 0.17 m
3 Thermal conductivity 0.25 W/m K
4 Pores per inch (PPI) 10-65 PPI
5 Mass 9g
6 Color Black
744
745 Table. 2
746 Accuracy of the measuring instruments

S.No. Instrument Model/Make Accuracy Range

1 Data Acquisition System HP-Agilent 34970A ±1°C 0-100°C
2 Pyranometer HUKSEFLUX CP02 ±5 W/m2 0-1750 W/m2
3 K-type thermocouples GENERIC ±0.1°C 0-100°C
4 Anemometer AVM-03 ±2% 0-9990 CFM
5 Measuring jar Borosil ±10 ml 0-1000 ml
6 TDS meter TDS-3 ±2% 0-99990 ppm
7 EC meter VKTECH ±2% 0-99990 µS/cm
8 pH meter Hanna pH ±0.1 pH 0.0-14 pH
9 Digital weighing balance Healthsense ±0.1kg 1-5000 g
747
748 Table. 3
749 Boundary zone type and conditions
S.No. Zone Zone type Description
1 Top CIF surface Wall h = 10 W/m2
2 Bottom CIF surface Wall T = 303-344 K
3 Side CIF surface Wall T = 303-344 K
750
751
26
752 Table. 4
753 Tested water quality results
EC Tested rain water
TDS, ppm (WHO, 2003) pH (WHO 2007) (μS/cm) samples are collected
S.No. (WHO 2011) on 16.06.2017.
Before After Acceptable Before After Acceptable Before After Acceptable TDS EC
pH
treatment treatment level treatment treatment level treatment treatment level (ppm) (μS/cm)
Less than
1 927 14 6.4 7.4 6.5-8.5 867 37 0-800 36 6.5 16
300
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
27
766 Table. 5
767 Hourly variation of measured values for SSSS without insulation (2017/06/02)
Pd
Sl.No. I (W/m2) Tamb (°C) V (m/s) Tw (°C) Tair (°C) Tic (°C)
(ml/m2/day)
9:00 580 26 1.02 34 33 33.5 0
9:30 650 26.6 2.985 37 35.5 35 40
10:00 715 34.5 0.82 41 40.5 36.5 48
10:30 754 35.4 3.819 44 43.5 39 72
11:00 810 36.2 3.268 46 46 42 80
11:30 844 36.1 2.926 50.5 48 43.5 100
12:00 857 36.3 0.795 53 51 46 112
12:30 855 36 2.8 55.5 52 48.5 128
13:00 842 36 1.05 57.2 55.5 50 148
13:30 806 36 1.3 58.5 55 50.5 156
14:00 746 36.4 2.305 59.1 54 50 164
14:30 672 35.2 1.869 55.6 52.5 49.5 156
15:00 590 34.5 1.789 51.5 49 48.5 148
15:30 494 34.8 1.322 49.5 48.6 47 136
16:00 395 36.3 2.159 47.5 47 45 128
16:30 308 34.5 1.025 45 44.5 42.5 112
17:00 185 33.7 3.531 44 43.5 40 100
17:30 135 33 2.309 42 41 39 76
768
769
770
771
772

28
773 Table. 6
774 Hourly variation of measured values for SSSS with BW insulation (2017/06/02)
Pd
Sl.No. I (W/m2) Tamb(°C) V (m/s) Tw (°C) Tair (°C) Tic (°C)
(ml/m2/day)
9:00 580 26 1.02 47.3 47.1 46 0
9:30 650 26.6 2.985 48.6 48.3 47.8 40
10:00 715 34.5 0.82 51.9 50.3 49.3 64
10:30 754 35.4 3.819 58.6 56.4 54.8 88
11:00 810 36.2 3.268 61.1 59.4 56.5 112
11:30 844 36.1 2.926 63.5 62.1 58.5 128
12:00 857 36.3 0.795 67.6 65 60.6 152
12:30 855 36 2.8 68.3 66.4 62.8 160
13:00 842 36 1.05 69.2 66.9 63.3 172
13:30 806 36 1.3 69.8 67.8 64.7 184
14:00 746 36.4 2.305 70.3 69 65.7 188
14:30 672 35.2 1.869 69.5 68.3 63.9 184
15:00 590 34.5 1.789 68.9 67.8 62.2 176
15:30 494 34.8 1.322 66.5 66.3 60.2 164
16:00 395 36.3 2.159 64.1 63.9 59.9 144
16:30 308 34.5 1.025 59.8 60.2 55.6 134
17:00 185 33.7 3.531 51.6 56.4 52 112
17:30 135 33 2.309 50 55 51 92
775
776
777
778
779

29
780 Table. 6
781 Hourly variation of measured values for SSSS-CIF with BW insulation (2017/06/02)
Pd
Sl.No. I (W/m2) Tamb (°C) V (m/s) Tw (°C) TCIF (°C) Tair (°C) Tic (°C)
(ml/m2/day)
9:00 580 26 1.02 46.7 47.2 49.8 46 0
9:30 650 26.6 2.985 48.1 49.7 53.1 47.4 52
10:00 715 34.5 0.82 49.2 51.5 54.8 48.6 100
10:30 754 35.4 3.819 54.2 56.5 58.9 54.3 136
11:00 810 36.2 3.268 59.9 62.1 62.4 58.9 180
11:30 844 36.1 2.926 62.7 64.8 64.7 60 212
12:00 857 36.3 0.795 66 67.8 68.3 62 234
12:30 855 36 2.8 69.3 68.9 69 63.4 242
13:00 842 36 1.05 68.9 69.7 68.5 64 250
13:30 806 36 1.3 70 70.8 69 64.7 250
14:00 746 36.4 2.305 70.4 71.9 70.1 65.2 232
14:30 672 35.2 1.869 71 71.5 69.3 63.5 216
15:00 590 34.5 1.789 70 69.2 68.2 62.8 196
15:30 494 34.8 1.322 69.1 68.1 68.4 61.9 176
16:00 395 36.3 2.159 65.7 66 64 60 156
16:30 308 34.5 1.025 63.4 64 60.6 56.9 140
17:00 185 33.7 3.531 59.7 60 55 54 122
17:30 135 33 2.309 54.8 55.2 52.6 53.1 96
782
783
784
785
786

30
787 Table. 8
788 Hourly variation of measured values for SSSS with wooden insulation (2017/06/02)
Pd
Sl.No. I (W/m2) Tamb (°C) V (m/s) Tw (°C) Tair (°C) Tic (°C)
(ml/m2/day)
9:00 580 26 1.02 43.1 45.6 48 0
9:30 650 26.6 2.985 47.6 48.8 51.5 40
10:00 715 34.5 0.82 53 54 53.9 60
10:30 754 35.4 3.819 58.4 57.8 55.9 80
11:00 810 36.2 3.268 62.5 61.9 56.6 100
11:30 844 36.1 2.926 65.1 63.4 58 120
12:00 857 36.3 0.795 67 64 59.4 140
12:30 855 36 2.8 68.7 66 60 148
13:00 842 36 1.05 68.1 64.6 59 160
13:30 806 36 1.3 67.5 64.5 58.8 168
14:00 746 36.4 2.305 66.4 62.6 57.6 180
14:30 672 35.2 1.869 60.9 59.4 57 180
15:00 590 34.5 1.789 57.4 56.1 56.1 168
15:30 494 34.8 1.322 54.2 52.4 53 152
16:00 395 36.3 2.159 51 48 50 140
16:30 308 34.5 1.025 47.8 43.6 47 124
17:00 185 33.7 3.531 44.6 39.2 44 108
17:30 135 33 2.309 41.4 34.8 41 84

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table. 9
Parameters used for simulation
S.No. Parameters Value Unit
Water
1 Density (ρ) 998.2 kg/m3
2 Specific heat capacity (Cp) 4182 J/kg.K
3 Thermal conductivity (k) 0.6 W/m.K
4 Viscosity 0.001003 Pa.s
5 Molecular weight 18.052 g/mol
Glass
6 Density (ρ) 2500 kg/m3
7 Specific heat capacity (Cp) 750 J/kg.K
8 Thermal conductivity (k) 1.05 W/m.K
CIF absorber
9 Density (ρ) 35 kg/m3
10 Specific heat capacity (Cp) 1200 J/kg.K
11 Thermal conductivity (k) 0.25 W/m.K
Climatic parameters
12 Solar radiation I(t) 700 W/m2
13 Ambient temperature (Tamb) 29 °C

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table. 10
Water holding capacity of foams and sponge
Volume of Dry Wet Weight
Water Held
S.No Material type the weight weight difference
(Wt. diff.÷ Dry Wt.)
material in grams in grams in gram
Polyurethane foam
1 599 cm3 23 412 389 16.91
(high density)
Polyurethane foam
2 857 cm3 7 625 618 88.28
(low density)
3 PVA sponge 222 cm3 31 422 391 12.61
4 CIF 257 cm3 9 257 248 27.55

Table. 11
Cost analysis of experimented solar still designs
SSSS SSSS with
SSSS with SSSS-CIF
Components -US$ for 1 m2 still Without saw dust
BW with BW
insulation insulation
Galvanized iron 15 15 15 15
Top cover 3 3 3 3
Black paint 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56
Fresh water port 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Labor charge 12.5 12.5 12.5 13
Bubble wrap N/A 1.55 1.55 0
Wooden and saw dust insulation N/A N/A N/A 19.46
CIF Absorber N/A N/A 19.4 N/A
Pipes 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
Total 33.54 35.09 54.49 53.5
L/m2/day 1.924 2.34 2.9 2.124
$/L water 0.0060 0.0051 0.0064 0.0086
Cost increases - 5% 62% 60%
Output increases - 22% 37% 10%

33
804
805 Table. 12
806 Comparison of previous work with different insulation material used in the solar still
Year/Month of
S.No. Author Solar still design Thickness/Insulation Productivity
experimentation
1 Ganaraj et al. (2017), India Single slope solar still 20 mm/saw dust 2345 ml/day April-May 2016
Rajaseenivasan et al. (2017),
2 Single slope solar still 0.025 m/glass wool 3.19 kg/day June 2014-April 2015
India
3 Gupta et al. (2016), India Single slope solar still 20 mm/glass wool 2940 ml/day April 2015
4 Sharshir et al (2017), China Single slope solar still 5 mm/ glass wool 2116 ml/day Nov-Dec 2015
5 Rabhi et al. (2017), Tunisia Single slope solar still Plywood 2.34 l/m2 Jan 2016
6 Jamil and Akhtar (2017), India Single slope solar still 25 mm/glass wool 2.24 l/m2 March to June, 2015
7 Arunkumar et al. (2016), India Single slope solar still Saw dust 2.100 l/day Jan to Nov 2013
8 Arunkumar et al. (2016), India Single slope solar still Saw dust 1.600 l/day May 2012
9 Present work Single slope solar still 30 mm/bubble-wrap 2.3 l/m2/day April to June 2017
10 Present work Single slope solar still No insulation 1.9 l/m2/day April to June 2017
807
808
809

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 1. Details of CIF absorber

Fig. 2. (a) Photograph of CIF top view, (b) side view, and (c) zoomed view (pores)

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 3. Photographic view of Pyranometer

36
Fig. 4. [A] SSSS without insulation, [B] SSSS with BW insulation, [C] SSSS-CIF with BW insulation, and [D] Conventional solar still

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 5. (a) Pictorial view of BW insulation front view, and (b) bottom view

Fig. 6. Pictorial view of experimental setup with temperature indicators

Fig. 7. Snapshot of (a) SSSS-CIF with BW, (b) CIF in the basin and (c) trace of larger condensation
water marks under the cover
38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 8. Graphical view of solar radiation and ambient temperature with respect to time

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 9 (a). Temperature profile of SSSS without insulation, (b) Temperature profile of SSSS with BW
insulation, (c) Temperature profile of SSSS-CIF with BW insulation and, (d) Temperature profile of CSS

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 10. Evaporative heat transfer coefficient

Fig. 11 Mesh view of CIF

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 12. Temperature distribution of floating absorber in the solar still

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 13. Productivity with respect to solar still experiments

Fig. 14. Photograph of PVA sponge, polyurethane sponges and CIF

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 15. Photographic view of water holding capacity (dry and wet) of foams and sponges

44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 16. Economics of previous results as compared with present work

45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 The temperature distribution of the floating absorber was investigated with CFD.
 CFD showed good agreement with experiment.
 Carbon impregnated foam increased productivity by 35%.
 Bubble-wrap is found to be an inexpensive insulation material.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table. 6
Hourly variation of measured values for SSSS with BW insulation (2017/06/02)
I V Tw Tair Tic Pd
Sl.No. Tamb(°C)
(W/m2) (m/s) (°C) (°C) (°C) (ml/m2/day)
9:00 580 26 1.02 47.3 47.1 46 0
9:30 650 26.6 2.985 48.6 48.3 47.8 40
10:00 715 34.5 0.82 51.9 50.3 49.3 64
10:30 754 35.4 3.819 58.6 56.4 54.8 88
11:00 810 36.2 3.268 61.1 59.4 56.5 112
11:30 844 36.1 2.926 63.5 62.1 58.5 128
12:00 857 36.3 0.795 67.6 65 60.6 152
12:30 855 36 2.8 68.3 66.4 62.8 160
13:00 842 36 1.05 69.2 66.9 63.3 172
13:30 806 36 1.3 69.8 67.8 64.7 184
14:00 746 36.4 2.305 70.3 69 65.7 188
14:30 672 35.2 1.869 69.5 68.3 63.9 184
15:00 590 34.5 1.789 68.9 67.8 62.2 176
15:30 494 34.8 1.322 66.5 66.3 60.2 164
16:00 395 36.3 2.159 64.1 63.9 59.9 144
16:30 308 34.5 1.025 59.8 60.2 55.6 134
17:00 185 33.7 3.531 51.6 56.4 52 112
17:30 135 33 2.309 50 55 51 92

Table. 7
Hourly variation of measured values for SSSS-CIF with BW insulation
(2017/06/02)
I Tamb V Tw TCIF Tair Tic Pd
Sl.No.
(W/m2) (°C) (m/s) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (ml/m2/day)
9:00 580 26 1.02 46.7 47.2 49.8 46 0
9:30 650 26.6 2.985 48.1 49.7 53.1 47.4 52
10:00 715 34.5 0.82 49.2 51.5 54.8 48.6 100
10:30 754 35.4 3.819 54.2 56.5 58.9 54.3 136
11:00 810 36.2 3.268 59.9 62.1 62.4 58.9 180
11:30 844 36.1 2.926 62.7 64.8 64.7 60 212
12:00 857 36.3 0.795 66 67.8 68.3 62 234
12:30 855 36 2.8 69.3 68.9 69 63.4 242
13:00 842 36 1.05 68.9 69.7 68.5 64 250
13:30 806 36 1.3 70 70.8 69 64.7 250
14:00 746 36.4 2.305 70.4 71.9 70.1 65.2 232
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

14:30 672 35.2 1.869 71 71.5 69.3 63.5 216

15:00 590 34.5 1.789 70 69.2 68.2 62.8 196
15:30 494 34.8 1.322 69.1 68.1 68.4 61.9 176
16:00 395 36.3 2.159 65.7 66 64 60 156
16:30 308 34.5 1.025 63.4 64 60.6 56.9 140
17:00 185 33.7 3.531 59.7 60 55 54 122
17:30 135 33 2.309 54.8 55.2 52.6 53.1 96