Abstract The distillation is one of the important

methods of getting clean water from brackish and sea

water using the free energy supply from the sun. An
experimental work is conducted on a single slope solar
still. The thermal performance of the single slope solar
still is examined and evaluated through implementing
the following effective parameters: (a) different insu-
lation thicknesses of 1, 2.5 and 5 cm; (b) water depth of
2 and 3.5 cm; (c) solar intensity; (d) Overall heat loss
coefcient (e) effective absorbtivity and transmissivity;
and (f) ambient, water and vapor temperatures. Dif-
ferent effective parameters should be taken into ac-
count to increase the still productivity. A mathematical
model is presented and compared with experimental
results. The model gives a good match with experi-
mental values.
List of symbols
A
s
basin liner still area, (m
2
)
A
ss
side still area (m
2
)
a equation constant, Eqs. 27, 30
h
cb
basin liner convection heat transfer
coefcient (W/m
2
K)
h
b
basin liner overall heat transfer coefcient
(W/m
2
K)
h
cg
glass cover convection heat transfer
coefcient (W/m
2
K)
h
cw
heat loss coefcient by convection from water
surface (W/m
2
K)
h
ew
heat loss coefcient by evaporation from
water surface (W/m
2
K)
h
rb
basin liner radiative heat transfer coefcient
(W/m
2
K)
h
rg
glass cover radiative heat transfer coefcient
(W/m
2
K)
h
rw
basin water radiative heat transfer coefcient
(W/m
2
K)
h
tg
total glass heat transfer loss coefcient
(W/m
2
K)
h
w
convective heat transfer coefcient from
basin to water (W/m
2
K)
h
tw
total water surface heat transfer loss
coefcient (W/m
2
K)
I solar intensity (W/m
2
)
k
ins
insulation thermal conductivity (W/m K)
L
ins
insulation thickness (m)
M total mass productivity/day (kg/day)
(MC)
w
water heat capacity rate of water per unit
area (J/m
2
K)
P
g
glass saturated partial pressure (N/m
2
)
P
w
water saturated partial pressure (N/m
2
)
q
g
rateof total energyfromtheglass cover (W/m
2
)
q
b
rate of total energy from basin liner (W/m
2
)
q
bg
rate of energy lost from basin liner to the
ground (W/m
2
)
q
cg
rate of energy lost from the glass cover by
convective (W/m
2
)
O. O. Badran
Department of Mechanical Engineering, FET,
AL-Balqa Applied University, 15008,
Marka 11134 Amman, Jordan
M. M. Abu-Khader (&)
Department of Chemical Engineering, FET,
AL-Balqa Applied University, 15008,
Marka 11134 Amman, Jordan
e-mail: MAK@accessme.com
Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995
DOI 10.1007/s00231-006-0180-0
123
ORIGINAL
Evaluating thermal performance of a single slope solar still
Omar O. Badran Mazen M. Abu-Khader
Received: 17 June 2005 / Accepted: 25 July 2006 / Published online: 16 September 2006
Springer-Verlag 2006
q
ew
rate of energy lost from water surface by
evaporation (W/m
2
)
q
cw
rate of energy lost from water surface by
convection (W/m
2
)
q
rg
rate of energy lost from the glass cover by
radiation (W/m
2
)
q
rw
rate of energy lost from water surface by
radiation (W/m
2
)
q
s
rate of energy lost from the basin liner
through the side of the still (W/m
2
)
Tw
0
temperature of basin water (K)
Tg
in
temperature of inside glass (K)
Tg
out
temperature of outside glass (K)
T
a
ambient temperature (K)
T
b
basin liner temperature (K)
T
g
still glass cover (K)
T
sky
sky temperature (K)
T
v
still vapor temperature (K)
T
w
still water temperature (K)
t time (s)
U
b
overall bottom heat lost coefcient (W/m
2
K)
U
t
overall top heat loss coefcient (W/m
2
K)
U
e
overall side heat loss coefcient (W/m
2
K)
U
l
overall heat loss coefcient (W/m
2
K)
R
t
thermal resistance (m
2
K/W)
V wind speed (m/s)
h
fg
latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg K)
Greek symbols
a
b
absorbtivity fraction of energy absorbed by the
basin liner
a
g
absorbtivity fraction of energy absorbed by the
glass cover
a
w
absorbtivity fraction of energy absorbed by the
water surface
s transmissivity
e
g
glass emissivity
e
w
water emissivity
e
eff
effective emissivity
g
i
instantaneous efciency
g
vol
volumetric effeciency
b collector tilt angle (deg)
r StephanBoltzman coefcient (W/m
2
k
4
)
D difference
Subscript
0 initial value
out outlet
in inlet
1 Introduction
The increase of population and human agricultural and
industrial activities make the availability of fresh water
in arid and semiarid regions a problem of great
importance all over the world. The supply of drinkable
water is an important problem for the developing
countries. Most of these countries which are charac-
terized by a high intensity of solar radiation make the
direct use of solar energy a promising option for their
arid communities to reduce the major operating cost
for the distillation plant.
Solar distillation is one of the available methods to
produce potable water. This process has the advantage
of zero fuel cost, but requires more space (for collec-
tion) [11, 24, 30, 33, 34, 38].
The basic principles of solar water distillation are
simple, yet effective, as distillation replicates the way
nature puries water. The suns energy heats water to
the point of evaporation. As the water evaporates,
water vapor rises, condensing on the glass surface for
collection. This process removes impurities such as
salts and heavy metals, and destroys microbiological
organisms. The end result is water cleaner than the
purest rainwater. The use of solar energy is more
economical than the use of fossil fuels in remote areas
having low population densities, low rainfall and
abundant available solar energy. The productivity of
fresh water by solar distillation depends drastically on
the intensity of solar radiation, the sunshine hours and
the type of the still [4, 5, 23, 24, 27].
Single slope solar stills can be used for water desa-
lination. Probably, they are considered one of the
cheapest solutions for fresh water production. How-
ever, the amount of distilled water produced per unit
area is somewhat low which makes the single-basin
solar still unacceptable in some instances. To capture
and condense evaporated fresh water, a cold surface
(glass cover) is needed. Due to the slope in the glass for
solar still, the condensate vapor will ow through the
distillation channel then collected in the distillation
vessel.
2 Solar stills: an overview
An excellent review on the use of renewable energy in
various types of desalination systems and a survey of
the various types of solar thermal collectors and
applications were presented by Kalogirou [21, 22].
Many experimental and theoretical works have been
conducted on single basin solar stills for testing the
986 Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995
123
performance of different enhancement parameters.
Different absorbing materials were used by Akash
et al. [2], and Nijmeh et al. [29] to study their effect in
a solar still, and thus enhance the productivity of water,
using a single-basin solar still with double slopes. Ak-
ash et al. [3] examined the effect of using a solar still
with various cover tilt angles of 15, 25, 35, 45 and 55,
and the optimum tilt angle for water production was
found to be 35. Also the authors studied the effect of
the salinity of water on solar distillation, and concluded
that the distilled water production decreased with
salinity. Nafey et al. [27] investigated the main
parameters affecting solar still performance using four
different still design parameters operated under the
same weather conditions. A general equation is
developed to predict the daily productivity of a single
sloped solar still. Whereas, Nafey et al. [28] studied
experimentally the use of black rubber or black gravel
materials within a single sloped solar still as a storage
medium to improve the still productivity.
Khalifa et al. [28] conducted an experimental study
on new designs of basin type solar stills, and examined
the effect of certain modications on the productivity
and efciency. These modications included preheat-
ing of feed water by means of a solar heater and
utilizing external and internal condensers for vapor
condensation as well as for feed water preheating.
Boukar and Harmim [9, 10] studied the effect of
desert climatic conditions on the performance of a
simple basin solar still and a similar one coupled to a
at plate solar collector. The performance of the
simple still is compared with the coupled one. They
found that the coupled still is more productive than the
simple one.
A comparative experimental study was conducted
by Al-Karaghouli and Al-Naser [7, 8] between single
basin and double decker having the same basin area.
The authors concluded the following: (1) adding 2.5 cm
of styrobore insulation material to the solar stills sides
causes a noticeable increase in water production; and
(2) the daily average still production for the double-
basin still is around 40% higher than the production of
the single-basin still.
Aboul-Enein et al. [1] presented a simple transient
mathematical model for a single basin still through an
analytical solution of the energy-balance equations for
different parts of the still. The authors also investi-
gated the thermal performance of the still both
experimentally and theoretically, and the inuence of
cover slope on the daily productivity of the still. This
transient mathematical model was used by El-Sebaii
[12] for a vertical solar still to conduct parametric
investigation. He found that the daily productivity of
the still increases with increase of the still length,
width, and wind speed up to typical values. Further-
more, El-Sebaii [13, 14] examined the effect of wind
speed on the daily productivity of different designs of
single slope solar stills with single, double and triple
basins using computer simulation. He found that daily
production increases with the increase of wind speed
up to a typical velocity beyond which the increase in
production becomes insignicant. Most recent work
by El-Sebaii [15] is the investigation of the thermal
performance using a transient mathematical model of
triple basins solar still.
Hamdan et al. [19] preformed an experimental and
theoretical work to nd the performance of single,
double and triple basins solar still. Whereas, Jubran
et al. [20] developed a mathematical model to predict
the productivity and the thermal characteristics of a
multistage solar still with an expansion nozzle and
heat recovery in each stage of the still. Al-Hinai
et al. [5] reported the use of a mathematical model
to predict the productivity of a simple solar still
under different climatic, design and operational
parameters in Oman. Furthermore, Al-Hinai et al.
[6] developed two mathematical models to compare
the productivity of single-effect and double-effect
solar stills under different climatic, design and
operational parameters.
Mathioulakis et al. [25] suggested a simplied the-
oretical method for the evaluation of the performance
of a typical solar still and the prediction of long-term
water production. Moreover, Voropoulos et al. [41]
preformed an evaluation for this simple method in
three steps, the rst being experimental determination
of the coefcients and successive prediction of output,
the second being calculation of coefcient values
through analytical relations and the third being the use
of the model in a continuous way.
Thermal modeling and characterization of solar still
were presented by Tiwari [34], Tiwari and Noor [35],
Tiwari and Prasad [36], and Tiwari et al. [37]. A
transient analysis of a double basin solar still was
studied by Suneja and Tiwari [32]. They investigated the
effect of water depth in the lower basin on the perfor-
mance of the system. The authors observed that the
daily yield of an inverted absorber double basin solar
still increases with the increase of water depth in the
lower basin for a given water mass in the upper basin.
Tiwari et al. [39] derived expressions for water and glass
temperatures, hourly yield and instantaneous efciency
for both passive and active solar distillation systems.
Recently, Tripathi and Tiwari [40] analyzed the
distribution of solar radiation, using the concept of solar
fraction inside a conventional single slope solar still by
Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995 987
123
using simulation model for a given solar azimuth, alti-
tude and latitude angles, and longitude of the place.
Srivastava et al. [31] in their numerical computa-
tions showed that there is a signicant effect in the
plant, water temperatures and distilled output due to
change in the fraction of the solar radiation incident on
the north wall, depth of water, absorptivity of basin
and the inclination of the roof whereas the heat
capacity of the plant has a marginal effect on these
temperatures and distilled output.
Fath et al. [16] presented analytical, thermal and
economic comparisons between pyramid and single
slope solar stills. They found that the single slope gave
higher daily yield (30%) in winter and 3% higher in
summer; they attributed this due to the larger radiation
losses from the cover surface of the pyramid.
Goosen et al. [18] found that the theoretical analysis
(i.e., modeling) of different solar desalination systems
is an effective tool for predicting system performance.
They found that the efciency of single-basin solar
stills is very low compared to the multi-effect solar
desalination systems which reuse the latent heat of
condensation. They concluded that the increase in
efciency, though, must be balanced against the in-
crease in capital and operating costs compared to the
single-basin still.
From the above reviewed work on solar stills, it is
clear that there is a need to address a comprehensive
mathematical model for single slope solar still and all
involved interactive parameters. Therefore, the main
objectives of this present work are to investigate all
modes of heat and mass transfer involved in the single
solar still, and to evaluate the various parameters
affecting both the efciency and productivity of the
still. Experimental work and validation of mathemati-
cal modeling are carried out and compared.
3 Theoretical analysis of a solar still
The theoretical analyses were performed by energy
balance on various components of the still with the
help of MATLAB software. Figure 1 illustrates various
energy quantities in the still which have a direct effect
on the output yield. To simplify the analysis, the
following assumptions are made:
1. There is no vapor leakage in the still, and this is
important to increase the productivity and
efciency.
2. There is no temperature gradient along the glass
cover thickness and in water depth. Also the
absorbed energy by the glass cover is negligible.
3. The level of water in the basin is maintained at
constant level.
4. The condensation that occurs at the glass trough is
a lm-type.
When conducting energy balance in terms of (W/m
2
)
for passive still, the following assumptions are taken into
consideration:
1. An optimum Inclination of the glass cover
2. The heat capacity of the glass cover, the absorbing
material and the Insulation (bottom and sides) are
negligible.
3. The solar distiller unit is vapor-leakage-proof.
The energy balances for each of the three main
components are presented as follows:
(a) The solar still glass cover:
a
g
I t q
rw
q
cw
q
ew
q
rg
q
cg
_ _
1
(b) The solar basin bottom plate (basin liner):
a
b
I t q
b
q
bg
q
s
A
s
A
ss
_ _ _ _
2
(c) The solar still water mass:
a
w
I t q
b
MC
w
dT
w
dt
q
rw
q
cw
q
ew
3
3.1 External heat transfer
The external heat transfer is mainly governed by con-
duction, convection and radiation processes which are
independent of each other.
s
q
b
I(t)
rw cw ew
q q q
cg rg
q q
I(t)
g
R I(t)
(Reflected)
g
I(t)
(Absorbed)
g
I(t)
(Transmitted)
cb
q
w
R I(t)
Fig. 1 Energy ow through a single basin solar still
988 Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995
123
This process covers exchanges between the outside
of the solar still and the surroundings, for example heat
transfer from the glass to the ambient, the heat transfer
from water in the basin to the ambient and the bottom
and sides insulation. The following heat transfer coef-
cients are considered:
3.1.1 I- top loss coefcient
Due to the small thickness of the glass cover (4 mm),
the temperature of the glass may be assumed to be
uniform. The external radiation and convection losses
from the glass cover to outside atmosphere can be
expressed as
q
g
q
rg
q
cg
4
where
q
rg
h
rg
T
g
T
a
_ _
5
q
cg
h
cg
T
g
T
a
_ _
6
The glass cover radiative heat transfer coefcient (h
rg
)
can be evaluated from the following equation:
h
rg

e
g
r T
4
g
T
4
sky
_ _
T
g
T
a
_ _ 7
T
sky
T
a
6 8
by substituting q
cg
and q
rg
into Eq. 4, Eq. 9 can be
formulated:
q
g
h
tg
T
g
T
a
_ _
9
where h
tg
is the convection and radiation heat transfer
coefcient or in other words, it is the total glass heat
transfer loss coefcient from glass to the ambient, and
it is a function of the wind speed:
h
tg
h
rg
h
cg
10
h
tg
5:7 3:8 V 11
3.1.2 II- bottom and sides loss coefcient
Heat is also lost from the water in the basin to the
ambient through the insulation and subsequently by
convection, radiation and conduction from the bottom
or side surface of the basin. Hence, the overall bottom
loss coefcient (U
b
) can be written as
U
b

1
1
h
w

L
ins
k
ins

h
rb
h
cb
h
cb
h
rb
_ _ 12
where
h
b

1
L
ins
k
ins

h
rb
h
cb
h
cb
h
rb
_ _ 13
The values of h
cg
+ h
rg
can be obtained from Eq. 4 by
substituting V = 0 because there is no wind velocity at
the bottom of the insulation.
Similarly, the side heat loss coefcient (U
e
) can be
approximated as
U
e
U
b
A
ss
A
s
_ _
14
If the side still area (A
ss
) is very small compared with
(A
s
), then (U
e
) can be neglected [24].
3.2 Internal heat transfer
Heat transfer within the solar still is referred to as
internal heat transfer which mainly consists of radia-
tion, convection and evaporation that occurs between
the water surface and glass cover [24]. These three
modes of internal heat transfer are discussed as
follows:
3.2.1 I- radiation loss coefcient
It is known that radiation heat transfer occurs between
any two bodies when there is a temperature difference
between them, and considering the water surface and
glass cover, the radiation between the water and the
glass can be given by
q
rw
h
rw
T
w
T
g
_ _
0:96r T
4
w
T
4
g
_ _
15
where h
rw
can be obtained from:
h
rw
e
eff
r T
w

2
T
g
_ _
2
_ _
T
w
T
g
_ _
_ _
16
The effective emittance between the water surface
and the glass cover can be presented by
Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995 989
123
e
eff

1
1
e
w

1
e
g
1
_ _ 17
The values of the constants will be
w
= 0.96,

g
= 0.88 given in [26].
3.2.2 II- convective loss coefcient
Free convection occur across the humid air in the
enclosure, due to the temperature difference between
the water surface and the glass cover. The convective
heat transfer rate can be obtained from the following
equation [17, 24]:
q
cw
h
cw
T
w
T
g
_ _
18
where the convective heat loss coefcient h
cw
will be
obtained from the following expression [34]:
h
cw
0:884 T
w
T
g

P
w
P
g
_ _
T
w

268:9 10
3
P
w
_ _
1
=
3
19
where P
w
and P
g
are the vapor pressures at glass and
water temperatures. They can be expressed by the
following equations respectively:
P
g
e
25:317
5144
Tg
_ _
20a
P
w
e
25:317
5144
Tw

20b
3.2.3 III- evaporation loss coefcient
It is necessary for the evaporation loss coefcient to
nd out the evaporation pressure occurring inside the
still and acting on the glass and the water surfaces. Due
to condensation of the rising vapor on the glass cover,
there is heat loss by evaporation between the water
surface and the glass cover. This can be expressed by
the following empirical equation [34]:
q
ew
h
ew
T
w
T
g
_ _
21
where
h
ew
16:273 10
3
h
cw
P
w
P
g
_ _
T
w
T
g
_ _ 22
Equations 18 and 21 are evaluated at initial water
and glass temperatures. Then the total internal heat
transfer coefcient between water surface and glass
cover can be expressed as
h
tw
h
rw
h
cw
h
ew
23
3.3 Overall heat transfer
By substituting Eqs. 5, 6, 9, 18, 21 into Eqs. 1, 2 and 3,
the overall energy balance equations become:
a
g
I t h
tw
T
w
T
g
_ _
h
tg
T
g
T
a
_ _
24
a
w
I t h
w
T
b
T
w
MC
w
dT
w
dt
h
tw
T
w
T
g
_ _
25
a
b
I t h
w
T
b
T
w
h
b
T
b
T
a
26
By substituting the values of T
g
and T
b
in Eqs. 24
and 26 into Eq. 25, then
dT
w
dt
aT
w
f t 27
where a
U
l
MC
w
and f t
as
eff
I t U
l
T
a
MC
w
(as)
eff
and U
l
can be represented by following
equations:
as
eff
a
b
h
w
h
w
h
b
a
w
a
g
h
tw
h
tw
h
tg
28
U
l
U
b
U
t
29
where R
t
is equal to
R
t

1
h
tw

1
h
tg
29a
and
U
t

1
R
t

h
tw
h
tg
h
tw
h
tg
29b
In order to obtain an approximate analytical solu-
tion, the following assumptions have been made:
1. The time interval Dt (0 < t < Dt) is small.
2. a is constant during the time interval Dt.
3. The side heat loss coefcient U
e
was neglected
because of the use of rock wool insulator and the
xed side mirrors.
4. The function f (t) is constant, i.e. f t
_
f t for the
time Interval Dt.
990 Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995
123
By using the following boundary condition:
At t =0, T
w(t=0)
= Tw
0
and T
g(t=0)
= Tg
0
An approximate solution for T
w
can be obtained:
T
w

f t
a
1 expat Tw
0
expat 30
where Tw
0
is the temperature of basin water and f t
is the average value of f (t) for time interval Dt at a
value of 0.21 [39]. The average glass temperature can
be evaluated using the following equation:
T
g

a
g
I t h
tw
T
w
h
tg
T
a
h
tw
h
tg
_ _ 31
The instantaneous efciency for passive solar still is
g
i

q
ew
I t

h
tw
h
tg
h
tw
h
tg
T
w
T
a
32
and by substituting Eq. 30 into Eq. 32, then
g
i

h
tw
h
tg
h
tw
h
tg
:
1
U
l
as
eff
1 exp at U
l
Tw
0
T
a

I t
exp at
_ _
33
The glass window used is 4 mm thickness with an
average transmissivity (s) of 0.88.
whereas, the volumetric efciency, which represents
the productivity, can be found by the following equa-
tion:
g
vol

h
fg

A
s
I
34
where (I) is the daily solar radiation, (M) is the total
productivity of the day, (h
fg
) is the latent heat of
vaporization, (A
s
) is the still area.
4 Experimental set-up
The still was constructed from a large variety of local
materials to reduce the overall cost and ease of con-
struction. The solar still has side mirrors to enhance the
productivity through the re-reectivity of the rays on
water surface and the incident solar radiation [4].
The still technical specications are shown in
Table 1, and Fig. 2 shows the geometrical dimension of
the solar still used in the experiments.
The basin liner is made of galvanized iron sheet of
90 110 cm
2
with maximum height of 5 cm, and
1.4 mm thickness. The galvanized basin was painted by
red-lead primer then by matt-type black paint.
There are certain specications needed for the used
glass cover in the still, and they are (a) Minimum
amount of absorbed heat, (b) Minimum amount of
reection for solar radiation energy, (c) Maximum
transmittance for solar radiation energy, and (d) high
thermal resistance for heat loss from the basin to the
ambient.
Glass covers have been sealed with silicon rubber
which plays an important role to promote efcient
operation as it can accommodate the expansion and
contraction between dissimilar materials. Rock wool of
5 cm thickness with thermal conductivity of 0.045 W/m
K is used as an insulating material to reduce the heat
losses from the bottom and the side walls of the solar
still.
A small feeding tank is installed in the system as a
constant head tank which is used to control the level of
water inside the still (maintain the water level in the
basin constant along time) by a oating ball.
Table 1 Technical specication of the solar still
Specication Dimensions
Basin area (m
2
) 1
Glass area (m
2
) 1.46
Glass thickness (mm) 4
Number of glass 1
Slope of glass 32
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of the single slope solar still (dimen-
sions are in cm)
Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995 991
123
4.1 Measuring devices
The measuring devices used in the system are as
follows:
1. A Pyranometer is used to measure the solar
radiation. This device measures the instantaneous
intensity of radiation in (kW/m
2
) with a range from
0 to 1.2 kW/m
2
.
2. Five thermocouples (type-k) coupled to digital
thermometer with a range from 0 to 99.9C with
1C accuracy are used to measure the tempera-
tures of the various components of the still system.
3. A digital anemometer is used to measure wind
speed.
5 Discussion of results
The solar still is operated from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
during the months of March and April 2004. The
measurements of the temperatures, solar radiation
intensity, and the production of distilled water are ta-
ken hourly to study the effect of each parameter on the
still productivity. Then the experimental results are
compared with theoretical results to check the mathe-
matical model predictions for validation purposes. In
this study various operating conditions have been
examined such as; different water depth, insulation
thickness, ambient temperature, and solar intensity.
The variables such as Tg
in
, Tg
out
, T
a
,T
w
, T
b
, T
v
, I, V
and productivity were measured hourly. The total
productivity and solar Intensity for each day were also
measured. Also, different experimental tests were
carried out at different ambient conditions. The wind
speed is found to be around 24 m/s.
Figure 3 shows the experimental results taken in 1st
of April 2004. It can be seen that an increase in the
water temperature occurs until it reaches the maximum
in the afternoon because the absorbed solar radiation
exceed the losses to the ambient.
From about 2 pm, water temperature decreases due
to the losses from the solar still which becomes larger
than the absorbed solar radiation. It can be noted that
the basin temperature get closer to the water temper-
ature because of the continuous contact between them
which lead to heat equilibrium. Also, Fig. 3 shows that
vapor temperature is the largest temperature in the
solar still because at this temperature the particles have
enough energy to evaporate. It can also be seen from
Fig. 3 that the inner and outer glass temperatures have
almost the same value, which means that the difference
between them is very small DT = Tg
in
Tg
out
.
Therefore, the assumption made earlier that the ab-
sorbed energy by the glass is negligible is valid.
As the glass temperature is much smaller than the
vapor temperature, it causes condensation of vapor on
the glass. In the early hours of the morning (89 am),
the glass temperature is higher than the water and
vapor temperatures causing small productivity due to
the small energy absorbed by the water at these times.
Figure 4 illustrates the increase in the solar intensity
in the early morning until it reaches the maximum at
around 12 and 13 pm, then decreases in the late
afternoon. The solar intensity has an important effect
on the solar still productivity. This is shown clearly in
Fig. 5. As the solar intensity increases, the productivity
increases due to the increase in heat gain for water
vaporization inside the still.
The productivity rate varies as time passes from
early morning until late afternoon. Figure 6 shows that
the productivity increases until it reaches the maximum
in the afternoon then decreases in the late afternoon.
The water temperature can be taken as one of
parameters that has a direct effect on the productivity.
This is evident in Fig. 6, whereas the depth of water
0
20
40
60
80
100
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Local Standard Time (hr)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s

(
C
)
Tg,in
Tw
Tv
Ta
Tg,out
Fig. 3 Relationship among various temperatures and standard
local time in 1st of April
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Standard Local Time (hr)
S
o
l
a
r

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
k
W
/
m
2
)
Fig. 4 Relationship between solar intensity and standard local
time in 1st of April
992 Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995
123
increases from 2 to 3.5 cm, the daily still output de-
creases (inversely proportional). This decrease in the
productivity of the still is due to the fact that as the
depth increases the water will have higher heat
capacity rate, which results in a lower temperatures of
the basin and water, thus, lower evaporation rate. This
is supported by previous researchers [9].
Figure 7 shows the variation of the overall heat loss
coefcient through the standard local time using the
theoretical model. The results show that there is a
strong relationship between solar intensity (Fig. 4),
ambient temperature (Fig. 3) and overall heat loss
coefcient. As the solar intensity increases the overall
heat loss coefcient increases (directly proportional).
This is attributed to the high temperature of the solar
still at higher solar intensities. This investigation
proved the proportional dependency of the overall
heat loss coefcient on the solar intensity.
The solar still efciency is considered as the most
important parameter to be evaluated as can indicate
the best still design. Figure 8 shows that the efciency
increases with time until reaching the maximum value
in the afternoon. At the maximum, the incident solar
radiation is larger than heat losses early in the after-
noon. Then the heat losses starts overcoming the
incident solar radiation (which decreases with time)
thus the efciency decreases in the late afternoon. It
can be concluded that as the solar intensity increases,
the heat loss decreases and the water and ambient
temperature difference increases considerably due to
the increase of the water temperature through con-
duction process between the black base and the water.
As the ambient temperature increases, the efciency
increases as shown in Fig. 9.
In the morning, the temperature of water is low;
therefore it needs high energy to change its phase from
saturated liquid to saturated vapor phase. The results
show that temperature and required heat are inversely
proportional. In the early afternoon the temperature of
water reaches the maximum so it needs less heat to
vaporize, and vise versa in the late afternoon.
Based on theoretical calculations of the proposed
mathematical model, the insulation thickness has a
direct effect on the productivity as shown in Fig. 10.
The efciency increases when the insulation thickness
increases. This is due to the decrease in the heat loss
from the still to the surroundings. The theoretical value
of absorbtivity multiplied with transmissivity is a
function of the solar intensity and the ambient condi-
tion. Figure 11 shows its behaviour against local time.
It has a maximum value related to the maximum
of solar intensity, and then decreases in the late
0
200
400
600
800
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85
Solar Intensity (kW/m
2
)
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y


(
m
l
/
m
2
.
h
r
)
Fig. 5 Relationship between solar intensity and productivity
0
200
400
600
800
1000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Standard Local Time (hr)
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(

m
l
/
m
2
.
h
r

)
3.5 cm
depth
2 cm
depth
Fig. 6 Relationship between productivity and various water
depths at standard local time
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Standard Local Time (hr)
U
i
(
k
W
/
m
2
.
C
)
Fig. 7 Relationship between theoretical overall heat loss coef-
cient and standard local time in 1st of April
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Standard Local Time (hr)
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Fig. 8 Change of the efciency with standard local time at 2 cm
depth in 1st of April
Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995 993
123
afternoon. Also a comparison between the theoretical
and experimental results of productivity was conducted
to validate the proposed mathematical model as shown
in Fig. 12 which illustrates that the deviation in the
results between the experimental and theoretical re-
sults is very narrow. The proposed theoretical model
gave a good match with the experimental results. This
may help to investigate factors which enhance the
productivity of the solar still. Also the agreement be-
tween the experimental and the theoretical results
prove the accuracy of the theoretical model used in the
present study.
6 Conclusions
In this present study, several conclusions can be ob-
tained as follows; (a) the increase in either ambient
temperature and/or the solar intensity can lead to an
increase the solar productivity, (b) as the water depth
decreases from (3.5 cm) to (2 cm), the productivity
increases by (25.7 %), (c) The maximum efciency
occurs in early afternoon due to the high solar radia-
tion at this time, (d) the overall heat loss coefcient
increases until it reaches the maximum in the after-
noon due to higher solar intensity and ambient tem-
perature, and nally, (e) the proposed mathematical
model gave good match with experimental results.
Future work can be carried out using this model to
enhance the design of single solar stills.
References
1. Aboul-Enein S, El-Sebaii AA, El-Bialy E (1998) Investiga-
tion of a single-basin solar still with deep basins. Renew
Energy 14(14):299305
2. Akash BA, Mohsen MS, Osta O, Elayan Y (1998) Experi-
mental evaluation of a single-basin solar still using different
absorbing materials. Renew Energy 14(14):307310
3. Akash BA, Mohsen MS, Nayfeh W (2000) Experimental
study of the basin type solar still under local climate condi-
tions. Energy Convers Manage 41(9):883890
4. Al-Hayek I, Badran O (2004) The effect of using different
designs of solar stills on water distillation. Desalination
169(2):121127
5. Al-Hinai H, Al-Nassri MS, Jubran BA (2002a) Effect of
climatic, design and operational parameters on the yield of a
simple solar still. Energy Convers Manage 43(13):16391650
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
(Tw - Ta)/I(t)
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Fig. 9 Change of the efciency with (T
w
T
a
)/I (t)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Standard Local Time
E
f
f
i
c
ie
n
c
y
1 cm
2.5 cm
5 cm
Fig. 10 Insulation thickness effect on the efciency
0.73
0.735
0.74
0.745
0.75
0.755
0.76
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Standard Local Time

Fig. 11 Relationship between (as) and the standard local time in

1st of April
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Stand Local Time (hr)
P
r
o
c
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
m
l
/
m
2
.
h
r
)
Experimental
data
Theoretical
data
Fig. 12 Comparison between theoretical and experimental pro-
ductivity in 1st of April (the straight and dashed lines are the
tting lines of the experimentaland theoretical data respectively)
994 Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995
123
6. Al-Hinai H, Al-Nassri MS, Jubran BA (2002b) Parametric
investigation of a double-effect solar still in comparison with
a single-effect solar still. Desalination 150(1):7583
7. Al-Karaghouli AA, Alnaser WE (2004a) Experimental
comparative study of the performances of single and double
basin solar-stills. Appl Energy 77(3):317325
8. Al-Karaghouli AA, Alnaser WE (2004b) Performances of
single and double basin solar-stills. Appl Energy 78(3):347
354
9. Boukar M, Harmim A (2001) Effect Of Climate Conditions
On The Performance of a Simple Basin Solar Still: A Com-
parative Study. Desalination 137(1-3):1522
10. Boukar M, Harmim A (2004) Parametric study of a vertical
solar still under desert climatic conditions. Desalination
168:2128
11. Dufe JA, Beckman WA (1991) Solar Engineering of ther-
mal processes. Madison, Wisconsin, USA
12. El-Sebaii AA (1998) Parametric study of a vertical solar still.
Energy Convers Manage 39(13):13031315
13. El-Sebaii AA (2000) Effect of wind speed on some designs of
solar stills. Energy Convers Manage 41(6):523538
14. El-Sebaii AA (2004) Effect of wind speed on active and
passive solar stills. Energy Convers Manage 45(78):1187
1204
15. El-Sebaii AA (2005) Thermal performance of a triple-basin
solar still. Desalination 174(1):2337
16. Fath HES., El-Samanoudy M, Fahmy K, Hassabou A (2003)
A Thermal-Economic Analysis And Comparison Between
Pyramid Shaped And Single-Slope Solar Still Congurations.
Desalination 159:6979
17. Fernandez JL, Chargoy N (1990) Multi-stage indirect heated
solar still. Solar Energy (44):21523
18. Goosen M, Sabalani S, Shyya W, Paton C, Al-Hinai H (2000)
Thermodynamic and Economic Considerations In Solar
Desalination. Desalination 129:6389
19. Hamdan MA, Musa AM, Jubran BA (1999) Performance of
solar still under Jordanian climate. Energy Convers Manage
40(5):495503
20. Jubran BA, Ahmed MI, Ismail AF, Abakar YA (2000)
Numerical modelling of a multi-stage solar still. Energy
Convers Manage 41(11):11071121
21. Kalogirou SA (2004) Solar thermal collectors and applica-
tion. Prog Energy Combust Sci 30(3):231295
22. Kalogirou SA (2005) Seawater desalination using renewable
energy sources. Prog Energy Combust Sci 31(3):242281
23. Khalifa AJ, Al-Jubouri AS, Abed MK (1999) An experi-
mental study on modied simple solar stills. Energy Convers
Manage 40(17):18351847
24. Malik MAS, Tiwari GN, Kumar A, Sodha MS (1982) Solar
distillation. Pergamon press Ltd, New York
25. Mathioulakis E, Voropoulos K, Belessiotis V (1999) Mod-
eling and prediction of long-term performance of solar stills.
Desalination 122(1):8593
26. Mills AF (1995) Basic heat and mass transfer. Richard D.
Irwin series in Heat Transfer, USA
27. Nafey AS, Abdelkader M, Abdelmotalip A, Mabrouk AA
(2000) Parameters affecting solar still productivity. Energy
Convers Manage 41(16):17971809
28. Nafey AS, Abdelkader M, Abdelmotalip A, Mabrouk A
(2001) Solar still Productivity enhancement. Energy Con-
vers Manage 42(11):14011408
29. Nijmeh S, Odeh S, Akash B (2005) Experimental and the-
oretical study of a single-basin solar still in Jordan. Int comm
In Heat Mass Transfer 32:565572
30. Sawhney RL, Kamal R (1992) Solar energy and conserva-
tion. Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi
31. Srivastava NSL, Din GN, Tiwari GN (2000) Performance
Evaluation Of Distillation-Cum-Greenhouse For a Warm
and Humid Climate. Desalination 128:6780
32. Suneja S, Tiwari GN (1999) Effect of water depth on the
performance of an inverted absorber double basin solar still.
Energy Convers Manage 40(17):18851897
33. Tiwari GN (1992) Contemporary physicssolar energy and
energy conservation. In: Recent Advances in Solar Distil-
lation. Wiley Eastern Ltd., New Delhi. Chapter II
34. Tiwari GN (2002) Solar Energy. Narosa Publishing House.
New Delhi
35. Tiwari GN, Noor MA (1996) Characterization of solar still.
Int J Solar Energy 18:147
36. Tiwari GN, Prasad B (1996) Thermal modeling of concen-
trator assisted solar distillation with water ow over the glass
cover. Int J Solar Energy 18(3):173
37. Tiwari GN, Kupfermann A, Agrawal S (1997) A new design
of double condensing chamber solar still. Desalination
114:153
38. Tiwari GN, Singh HN, Tripathi R (2003a) Present Status of
Solar Distillation. Solar Energy 75:367373
39. Tiwari GN, Shukla SK, Singh IP (2003b) Computer modeling
of Passive/active solar still by using inner glass temperature.
Desalination 154(2):171185
40. Tripathi R, Tiwari GN (2004) Performance evaluation of a
solar still by using the concept of solar fractionation. Desa-
lination 169(1):6980
41. Voropoulos K, Mathioulakis E, Belessiotis V (2003) Ana-
lytical simulation of energy behavior of solar stills and
experimental validation. Desalination 153(13):8794
Heat Mass Transfer (2007) 43:985995 995
123