Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Research Paper

Augmentation of a pyramid solar still performance using evacuated tubes T

and nanofluid: Experimental approach
Swellam W. Sharshira,b,c, A.W. Kandealc, M. Ismaild, Gamal B. Abdelazize, A.E. Kabeelf, ,
⁎

Nuo Yanga,
⁎

a
State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
b
School of Optical and Electronic Information, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
c
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Kafrelsheikh University, 33516 Kafrelsheikh, Egypt
d
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Suez University, Egypt
e
Mechanical Department, Faculty of Industrial Education, Suez University, Egypt
f
Mechanical Power Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

HIGHLIGHTS

• Investigated the effect of using evacuated tubes integrated with pyramid still.
• Conducted the effect of using evacuated tubes with copper oxide and carbon black integrated with pyramid still.
• Copper oxide and carbon black leads to improve the freshwater by about 27.85% and 33.59%.
• Maximum thermal efficiency was about 64.5% for the modified pyramid still with carbon black.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper presents an experimental approach of a new hybrid system of modified pyramid solar still combined
Solar energy with evacuated tubes and nanofluids for high thermal performance. The current work compares between the
Desalination performance and costs of three different units; one reference conventional solar still (CSS) and a couple of
Pyramid solar still pyramid solar stills namely: conventional pyramid solar still (CPSS) and modified pyramid solar still (MPSS). The
Evacuated tube
MPSS was integrated with evacuated tubes and, furtherly, nanofluids which are copper oxide (CuO) and carbon
Nanofluids
Copper oxide
black (CB) nanomaterials with 1.5% wt. According to resulted data, the enhancement percentage in total
Carbon black freshwater was 4.77 and 26.6% in the case of MPSS over CPSS and CSS, respectively. Furthermore, the total
freshwater was improved by about 27.85 and 54.48% in case of MPSS with copper oxide over CPSS and CSS.
Finally, the enhancement percentage in total freshwater was 33.59 and 57.098% in case of MPSS with carbon
black over CPSS and CSS, respectively. Moreover, the daily efficiency (ηd) of MPSS reached 50% whereas it
reached 61% and 64.5% in the case of MPSS with copper oxide and carbon black, respectively. On the other
hand, ηd reached 48 and 30% for CPSS and CSS, respectively. Finally, the performed cost analysis shows that the
proposed MPSS with nanofluids has economically reasonable with the offered optimal thermal performance.

1. Introduction solutions is solar desalination which depends on two abundantly

Currently, the demand for freshwater is increasing along with the
emergence of the population; however, unfortunately, less than 0.5% of
freshwater proportion is reachable, and hence these resources are being
over-depleted [1,2]. Thus, the appeal for making the abundant saline
water suitable for domestic, irrigation and especially for drinking pur-
poses witnesses an upward upsurge. One of the efficacious natural
available resources, almost everywhere on the earth, (saline water and
the sun) [3,4]. Solar still (SS) is one of the best desalination techniques
which features an uncomplicated construction, inexpensive, low op-
eration efforts, low maintenance and eco-friendly [5]. Unfortunately,
conventional solar still (CSS) has low productivity due to large loss of
heat to surrounding and need a large amount of heat to heat the basin
water [6]. So, its productivity enhancement has been done through

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: kabeel6@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg (A.E. Kabeel), nuo@hust.edu.cn (N. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.113997
Received 7 February 2019; Received in revised form 12 April 2019; Accepted 19 June 2019
Available online 20 June 2019
1359-4311/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.W. Sharshir, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997

Nomenclature OCP overall constant

SS Solar still
CuO copper oxide VP variable price
hfg latent heat, kJ/kg wt weight concentration, %
IR solar radiation, W/m2
m hourly yield, kg/m2 h Greek letters
md total yield, kg/m2 day
Tgo glass outer temperature, °C k thermal conductivity, W/m K
Tw water temperature, °C ηd daily efficiency
ϕ particle weight fraction, %
Abbreviation ρ density, kg/m3

C specific heat, kJ/kg K Subscripts

CB carbon black
CP constant price bf base fluid
CPSS conventional pyramid solar still nf nanofluid
CSS conventional solar still P Solid nanoparticle
MPSS modified pyramid solar still

several works, which have investigated advancement of some designs,
and operational conditions [7,8], thermal storage materials [9,10]
tubular solar still [11], SS integrated with humidification and dehu-
midification [12–14] and so on.
Moreover, to overcome the limitations of CSS, the pyramid solar still
(PSS) has been carried out. For PSS, in contrary to CSS, has no need for
a solar tracking system [15], minimum shading effect of the side wall
on the water surface [16] and larger condensation area [17]. Hamdan
et al. [18] made theoretical and experimental comparisons on the
performance of different multiple basin SSs with pyramid glass cover.
They concluded that the freshwater from triple basin SS was approxi-
mately 5.8% and 24% greater than that of a double basin, single basin

Fig. 1. (a) Photograph of the experimental setup. 1-(b) Saline water samples gathered from the Mediterranean Sea.

2
S.W. Sharshir, et al.
Table 1
Test-rig specifications.
Component Type and specifications
Fabrication material Steel of 1.5 cm thickness
CPSS Rectangular basin of 100 cm length, 50 cm width,
15 cm front height and 44 cm rear height
MPSS Square basin of 70 cm length, 70 cm width and 25 cm
rear height
Evacuated tubes Six tubes of 5.8 cm diameter,180 cm length, and 30°
tilt angle
Glass covers 4 mm thickness and 30° tilt angle
Coating of basins Industrial matt black
basin and walls insulation Glass-wool (5 cm thickness)
external framework Wooden frame (2 cm thickness)
Sealant Thermal silicon
respectively. Taamneh and Taamneh [19] examined the influence of
forced convection on the daily productivity of a PSS integrated with a
low power-consuming fan. They found that the productivity was im-
proved by 25% as compared to free CSS.
Furthermore, SS may be categorized by the source of the thermal
energy used to evaporate the water into passive depending directly on
the sun or active using a supplement [20] such as solar collectors [21],
concentrators [22], and water heaters [23]. Rajaseenivasan et al. [24]
investigated the effect of integrating flat plate collector to SS. The
productivity was boosted by 60% over CSS. Whereas, Fathy et al. [25]
studied the effect of integrating parabolic trough collector (PTC) to
double slope SS. The experiments illustrated that, SS with fixed and
tracked PTC enhanced the productivity by 89% and 142% over CSS,
respectively.
Flat plate collectors revealed considerable progress in SS perfor-
mance; however, the flat plate collectors receive the solar radiation
only from the top surface in addition to the need for circulation pump.
On the contrary, the evacuated tubes collectors gave more efficient
since the solar radiation is perpendicular to the surface of the tubes
almost the day as well as not need moving parts [26].
Recently, after the revolution of nanotechnology, further efforts
have been done studying the effect of using nanofluids on the perfor-
mance of SSs [27,28]. Various water nanofluids namely: Aluminum
Oxide (Al2O3), Zinc Oxide (ZnO), Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) and Tin Oxide
(SnO2) were tested in a CSS in which the productivity proportion wit-
nessed an increase by 29.95% using Al2O3 nanofluid [29]. Sharshir
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup illustrating different sensors positions.
3
Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997
et al. [30] evaluated the impact of using copper oxide (CuO) and gra-
phite flakes with glass cooling. The yield was promoted to about
53.95% and 44.91% over CSS utilizing the graphite flakes and CuO,
respectively. Kabeel et al. [31] experimentally investigated the addition
of Cu2O and Al2O3 solid nanoparticles. An increase in the production
rate of 93.87% and 88.97% was observed Cu2O and Al2O3, respectively.
Moreover, nanofluids have a great potential to enhance the solar
thermal conversion efficiency [32] due to their several features of
thermophysical properties compared to base fluid such as enhance heat
transfer [33,34], large thermal conductivity [35,36], large absorptivity
[9,28], and large surface area and low specific heat [37,38]. Various
nanomaterials have been used to improve the water evaporation, for
example, plasmonic metals [39], plasmonic nanofluid [40] carbon-
based materials [41,42], TiO2 nanoparticles mixed with black paint
[43], heat localization [44] and thin film evaporation [45].
The novelty of this work is to effectively enhance the performance
of PSS by using attached evacuated tubes to improve saline water
heating and accelerate its evaporation, as well as the freshwater pro-
ductivity. Furthermore, the effect of utilizing two different types of
nanomaterials with high thermophysical properties and large surface
area, which are copper oxide (CuO) and carbon black (CB) as nano-
fluids, is experimentally investigated in depth. The main outcomes of
these contributions will help to significantly increase the solar absor-
bance and thermal conductivity and decrease the specific heat capacity.
As a result, increase the thermal performance of PSS and the corre-
sponding enhancement in productivity.
2. Test-rig description and instrumentation
The investigated system was well prepared and manufactured from
economical and locally available materials and was augmented by
proper instruments to measure its performance parameters. The fol-
lowing sections discuss in detail the specifications of both the system
components and instrumentation.
The system consisted of three stills, one of them was CSS while the
others were the pyramidal ones which are the conventional pyramid
solar still (CPSS) and modified pyramid solar still (MPSS) of type A,
with evacuated tubes, and type B, with evacuated tubes and nanofluids,
as illustrated in Fig. 1-(a). All stills matched in both fabrication material
and insulation technique as they were made from 1.5 cm-thick black-
painted steel and well insulated with 5 cm-thick glass wool material
S.W. Sharshir, et al.
secured by 2 cm-thick outer wooden frames. Furthermore, for CSS, it
had a rectangular basin of 100 cm length and 50 cm width with 15 and
44 cm height for front and back sides, respectively. It was covered by
4 mm-thick glass cover tilted at 30° with the horizontal facing south. On
the other hand, both of CPSS and MPSSs were made in the shape of a
square basin of 75 cm length and 75 cm width having 20 cm height and
covered with 4 mm-thick pyramidal glass cover of 30° tilt angle. The
southern side of MPSSs had apertures formed to allow glass vacuum
tubes to penetrate the duct and provided with triple-edged silicone seals
to prevent water leakage. Six tubes of 5.8 cm diameter and 180 cm
length coated with AL-N/AL heat absorption coating were used. They
were positioned facing south and inclined to the horizontal at 45°.
Saline water samples were gathered from the Mediterranean Sea in
plastic tanks shown in Fig. 1-(b) and transported to the experiment
location in Kafrelsheikh city, Egypt. System specifications and dimen-
sions are summarized in Table 1.
2.1. Measuring instruments
Various performance affecting parameters were measured which are
wind velocity, solar radiation, and temperature at several locations. The
measurement techniques depended basically on electronic units and
sensors. A solar radiation sensor was used to measure solar irradiance.
For temperature, LM 35 temperature sensor with an accuracy of 0.5 °C
was used to measure the temperature of water surface, glass inner and
outer temperature, ambient temperature and basin water temperature.
Fig. 3. (a) The TEM image of the CB nanofluid (the scale bar is 100 nm), (b) The TEM image of the CuO nanofluid (the scale bar is 100 nm), (c) The absorption of pure
CB nanoparticles, pure and CuO nanoparticles and (d) The absorption of CB nanofluid with 1.5% wt, CuO nanofluid with 1.5% wt and pure water.
4
Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997
All measured data were recorded in on a memory card using Arduino
Mega (with 15 analog inputs and 53 digital I/O pins) for further ana-
lysis. The power needed for electronic components operation was ob-
tained from a PV-system consisting of PV panel, charger, and battery.
Additionally, freshwater was collected in scaled bottles connected to
the stills. Sensors positions are illustrated in the schematic shown in
Fig. 2.
Used devices were perfectly calibrated according to lab equipment.
The overall error percentages of temperature sensors were minimized
through AD590 calibration sensor. Also, the solar radiation sensor was
calibrated by positioning it at 30° and changing reading according to a
calibrated Pyranometer.
3. Results and discussion
As previously mentioned, the current work aims to evaluate the
performance of PSS by, firstly, integrating evacuated tubes to the PSS
basin and furtherly involving nanofluids. The units experimented at the
same time in outdoor conditions under the weather of Kafrelsheikh city,
Egypt (31°05′54″N and 30°57′00″E). The following sections discuss in
detail the obtained results and the enhancement portions.
3.1. Characterization of nanoparticles and nanofluids
To enhance the solar absorption and heat transfer of the pure water,
carbon black (CB) and copper oxide (CuO) nanoparticles are dispersed
S.W. Sharshir, et al.
in the water with 1.5% wt concentration. Fig. 3-(a) and (b) show the
morphology of the surface and the nanomaterials size measured by
using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The figure illustrates
the good homogenous dispersion of nanoparticles in water. Also, it was
found that the CB and CuO nanoparticles have a spherical shape, where
the average size of nanoparticles is around 40 nm in diameter, and also
nanoparticles are aggregated to small clusters.
The absorption spectra of CB, CuO nanoparticles, water, and na-
nofluids that used in this work were measured by using UV–Vis at 400
to 1100 nm wavelength as given in Fig. 3 (c) and (d). The absorption of
the pure CB nanoparticles is almost constant with a value of 98% in the
whole range of wavelength. On the other side, the absorption spectra of
pure CuO nanoparticle is changed with different wavelengths. The
maximum value was founded to be 96% at a small range of wavelength
from 400 to 500 nm. After that, it quickly decreases until it reached
73% at 900 nm wavelength, then the variation of the absorption spectra
keeps stable at large wavelength from 900 to 1100 as illustrated in
Fig. 3-(c).
Furthermore, Fig. 3-(d) shows the absorption of CB nanofluids, CuO
nanofluids, and water. It can be seen that the CB nanofluids have full
absorption approximately equal to 99.999 at the entire wavelength.
Additionally, CuO nanofluids have perfect absorption near to 99.99 at a
low wavelength from 400 to 800 nm after that the absorption of CuO
nanofluids decreased from 99.99 at 800 nm to reach the lowest value of
94 at 1100 nm as illustrated in Fig. 3-(d). Moreover, the pure water has
a low value of absorption at all wavelength, especially at low wave-
length from 400 to 800 nm as in Fig. 3 (d). From the previous discus-
sion, the experimental results indicate a better solar absorption cap-
ability by using nanofluids due to the nanofluids have a three-
dimensional absorbing structure, compared to the pure nanoparticles. It
should mention that, because of the lower water depth in the basin of
the solar still, the nanoparticles will be suspended in the base fluid to
make nanofluids.
3.2. Thermo-physical properties of the base fluid, nanoparticles, and
nanofluids
Recently, the use of solar thermal energy and nanotechnology are
the extremely common in a variety of applications. The nanofluids have
great potential to enhance the energy efficiency and heat transfer. This
attributed to the several merits compared to base fluid (i.e. water) such
as large thermal conductivity, large absorptivity and low specific heat.
As a result, improving the heat transfer properties, and therefore the
water evaporation [42,46] which increase the freshwater output from
the solar distiller [30]. Properties of both the nanoparticles (see Tables
2) and the base fluid (see Table 3) are used to determine the different
thermophysical properties of nanofluids tabulated in Table 4.
3.2.1. Prediction of thermal conductivity, specific heat and density of
nanofluids
It is recognized that the suspension of solid nanoparticles in the base
liquids can enhance coefficient of heat transfer [33,53] and thermal
conductivity [54,55]. We try to predict the thermal conductivity of the
base fluid and nanofluids at different temperature levels in the range of
the experimental study from 30 °C to 90 °C as illustrated in Fig. 4-(a)
based on the mathematical correlations given in Tables 2, 3 and 4. It is
concluded from the figure that the nanofluids have a higher thermal
conductivity than the base fluid at different temperature ranges, and
Table 2
Nanomaterials thermal properties.
Nanomaterials provided by the source Average Particles size Spherical
CuO 40 nm
CB 40 nm
Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997
this totally consistent with [56–58], and so improve the rate of eva-
porations as well as the freshwater production. Moreover, the thermal
conductivity of the nanofluids and base fluid increase with the tem-
perature.
Specific heat capacity is indispensable to investigate the system
thermal performances. Fig. 4-(b) illustrates the prediction of specific
heat for the base fluid, 1.5 CuO nanofluid, and 1.5 CB nanofluid. Also,
the specific heat of different fluid slightly increases with the tempera-
ture increase. To add with, the specific heat of base fluid is remarkably
higher that of nanofluids at different temperatures due to the small heat
capacity of nanoparticles compared to with base fluid it is fully con-
sistent with [37,38]. Moreover, the specific heat of CuO nanofluid is
remarkably less than that the CB nanofluid due to that the heat capacity
of CuO is small than the CB nanoparticles as mentioned in Table 2. It is
concluded that the specific heat decrement of nanofluids and the in-
crease the thermal conductivity of nanofluids helps the nanofluids to
heat up quickly compared to the base fluid, and consequently increase
the rate of evaporation and freshwater production.
Fig. 4-(c) illustrates the prediction of density for the base fluid and
CB nanofluid, and CuO nanofluid. Obviously, the figure shows that the
CB and CuO nanofluids have higher densities (CuO 6500 kg/m3, CB
1750 kg/m3) than that the base fluid (995 kg/m3) at different tem-
peratures ranging from 30 °C to 90 °C. However, the density of nano-
fluid and base fluid decreases extremely modest with temperature, due
to the influence on the base fluid, which agrees with [59].
3.3. Effect of attaching evacuated tube to PSS basin
Series of experiments were conducted to ensure the effect of in-
tegrating evacuated tubes to PSS. However, results were taken on 25th
May 2018 are presented in Fig. 4 as an example for illustration. For
Fig. 5-(a), the hourly ambient air temperatures and maximum values of
solar radiation incident (IR) at the southern side, where the evacuated
tubes are positioned, are presented. It is evident that the values of IR
follow the ordinary contour of variation as they vary from 300 W/m2 at
8:00 reaching a peak value of 950 W/m2 at noon and finally decrease
again in the afternoon period to 120 W/m2 at 18:00 falling to zero at
night. Additionally, the ambient air temperatures (Ta) take the same
trend of variation from 28 °C at 8:00 to 29 °C at 18:00 falling to 26 °C at
night with a peak-level-off value of 33.5 °C between 11:00 and 12:00.
By comparing the values of water temperature (Tw), Fig. 5-(b), the
preceding of CPSS over CSS is approximately constant during the day
with an average value of 2 °C. But for MPSS, the antemeridian hours
witness values of Tw close to CPSS with average enhancement of 1.6 °C,
whilst the afternoon hours record high improvement reaching about
24 °C over CPSS. Also, it can be noticed that Tw of both of CSS and PSS
reaches a maximum value at 13:00 in contrary to 14:00 in case of MPSS,
because of the quantity of water in the case of MPSS is much more than
PSS and CSS, and hence, the time consumed for water heating is longer.
As a result, the evacuated tubes worked as thermal storage leading to
the high difference in Tw in day late-hours.
Moreover, the values of glass outer temperature (Tgo) during the day
is illustrated in Fig. 5-(c). As shown, CSS and CPSS have semi-coincide
values with little average difference of 0.1 °C throughout the day as
they begin with 33 and 36 °C at 8:00 reaching 48 and 48.5 °C at 13:00
and decrease to 27.5 and 27 °C at 22:00, respectively. In the other word,
for MPSS, the values begin with 32 °C at 8:00 till the maximum value of
54 °C at 14:00 then down to 33 °C at 22:00. The obvious large difference
Density (kg/m3) Specific heat C (J/kg K) Thermal conductivityk (W/m k)
6500 [47] 531 76.6 [47]
1720 [48] 690.8 120 [48]
5
S.W. Sharshir, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997

Table 3
Base fluid thermophysical properties [49].
Quantity Expression

Density bf 999.79 + 0.0683 × Tbf 0.0107 × Tbf2 + 0.00082 × Tbf2.5 2.303 × 10 5 × Tbf3
Specific heatCbf 1.5
4.217 + 0.00561 × Tbf + 0.00129 × Tbf 0.000115 × Tbf2 + 4.149 × 10 6 × Tbf2.5
Thermal conductivitykbf 0.565 + 0.00263 × Tbf 1.5
0.000125 × Tbf 1.515 × 10 6 × Tbf2 0.000941 × Tbf0.5

Table 4 productivity (md), Fig. 5-(e). The rapprochement in values in the early
Nanofluids thermophysical properties. hours is due to the needed time to heat the amount of water which is
Quantity/(correlation – model) Expression higher in the case of MPSS compared to other units. Moreover, the large
improvement in productivity during late hours backs to heat capacity of
Weight concentration percentage mp water in the evacuated tubes, and that is why they are regarded as
= × 100
mp + mbf
thermal storage medium. Form , the values begin with no gain at 8:00
Density reaching 0.6, 0.65 kg/m2 at 13:00 for CSS and CPSS and 0.475 kg/m2 at
nf = ( ) 100 p + 1( 100 ) bf
Specific heat [50] ( 100) p Cp + (1 ( 100)) bf Cbf 14:00 in case of MPSS. Later, the values decrease to 0.002, 0.00 and
Cnf =
nf 0.1 kg at 22:00 for CSS, CPSS, and MPSS, respectively. On the other
Thermal conductivity [51]
Kp + (n 1) Kbf (n 1) Kbf Kp
hand, the values of md vary from zero at 8:00 to 3.12, 3.77 and 3.95 kg/
Knf = Kbf m2 at 22:00 for CSS, CPSS, and MPSS, respectively. The enhancement
Kp + (n 1) Kbf + Kbf Kp percentage in total freshwater md is 4.77% and 26.6% in the case of
MPSS over CPSS and CSS, respectively. In general, the case of MPSS
n particle shape factor for Spherical nanoparticles equal to 1 as in [52]. with evacuated tube require more water to fill the tubes. Thus it will
need more time to be heated, hence the productivity is not high in this
between MPSS and others at afternoon hours backs to the higher values system.
of Tw and hence the vapor temperatures which lead to heating the glass
cover through rejected heat amount. 3.4. Influence of copper oxide nanofluid on the performance of MPSS
The same trend of variations and enhancement during the day is
also found in case of both hourly yield (m ), Fig. 4 (d), and accumulative The hourly variations of IR and ambient temperature of MPSS

Fig. 4. Illustrated the prediction of thermo-physical properties of the base fluid and nanofluids (a) thermal conductivity, (b) Specific heat and (c) Density.

6
S.W. Sharshir, et al.
Fig. 5. Hourly variation of resulted data in case of attaching the evacuated tube, (a) hourly solar radiation with air temperature, (b) hourly water temperatures, (c)
hourly glass outer temperatures, (d) hourly yield and (e) daily yield.
integrated with CuO nanoparticles are illustrated in Fig. 6-(a). As is
observed, the radiation intensity began with a value of 300 W/m2 at
8:00 reaching its maximum value of 990 W/m2 at 12:00 before de-
creasing continuously to its minimum value of 180 W/m2 at 18:00.
Simultaneously, the ambient temperature was ranged from 27 to 35 °C.
The relative ratio of CuO to water was selected at 1.5% wt.
Fig. 6-(b) reveals the comparison of Tw between the provided units.
In the morning, the water temperature continuously changed with ap-
proximately close values in the CSS, CPSS, and MPSS till noon. Then,
MPSS with CuO recorded a higher value of Tw since the water tem-
perature was enhanced by the evacuated tube collector. This due to the
7
Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997
large absorption capability of CuO nanofluid than the base fluid as
mentioned above in Fig. 3-b, the decrease of specific heat of nanofluid,
and increase the thermal conductivity of CuO nanofluid, which helps
the CuO nanofluid to heat up quickly compared to base fluid. The
maximum value noticed to be 86 °C at 14:00 for MPSS with CuO, 72 °C
at 13:00 for CPSS and 69 °C at 13:00 for CSS. Similarly, the Tgo did not
witness a high change between the different stills before 12:00. Results
showed that the glass outer temperatures of MPSS with CuO exceeded
CPSS by about 4 –10 °C as illustrated in Fig. 6-(c). Consequently, the
hourly yield of MPSS with CuO was always higher than that of CPSS
and CSS. The maximum hourly productivity was 0.53 kg/m2 at 14:00
S.W. Sharshir, et al.
Fig. 6. Hourly variation of resulted data in case of MPSS with CuO, (a) hourly solar radiation with air temperature, (b) hourly water temperatures, (c) hourly glass
outer temperatures, (c) hourly yield (d) daily yield.
for MPSS with CuO. Fig. 4-(d) indicates that the productivity rate of
MPSS with CuO had a considerable upsurge compared to conventional
stills from 14:00 to 22:00. On the other hand, the values of md vary
from zero at 8:00 to 3.21, 3.71 and 4.82 kg/m2 at 22:00 for CSS, CPSS,
and MPSS, respectively which is higher than that of CPSS and CSS by
27.85 and 54.48% respectively as illustrated in Fig. 6-(e). The increase
in water temperature is accompanied by the increase in evaporation
rate, and thus increase the productivity in the MPSS with CuO com-
pared with the CSS and CPSS. This is mainly attributed to the char-
acteristics of the CuO nanofluid as mentioned in the Sections 3.1 and
3.2. Furthermore, the CPSS give a higher performance compared to the
CSS due to the minimum shading effect of the side wall on the water
8
Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997
surface and larger condensation area.
3.5. Influence of carbon black nanofluid on the performance of MPSS
Carbon black (CB) was used as a second type of nanofluids utilized
to improve the performance of MPSS. The relative ratio of CB to water
was selected at 1.5% wt. Series of experimental measurements were
conducted ensuring the stability of the enhancement gained by additing
of CB. A sample of the resulted experimental data at 29th June 2018 is
illustrated in Fig. 7. During the day, according to Fig. 7-(a), the max-
imum IR intensity measured on the southern side varies from 440 W/m2
at 8:00 am to 190 W/m2 at 18:00 with peak value of 1030 W/m2 at
S.W. Sharshir, et al.
Fig. 7. Hourly variation of resulted data in case of MPSS with CB nanofluid. (a) hourly solar radiation with air temperature, (b) hourly water temperatures, (c) hourly
glass outer temperatures, (d) hourly yield and (e) daily yield.
noon and falls to zero when sunset. Simultaneously, the corresponding
values of ambient temperature vary from 31 to 28 °C at 8:00 and 22:00,
respectively, with hump of 36 °C at noon.
A large amount of water in case of MPSS with CB lags the heating
which can be noticed from the closely of Tw of CSS, PSS, and MPSS with
CB at day early hours with an average difference of 2.8 °C as shown in
Fig. 7-(b). Also, for the same reason, the peak value of Tw was recorded
of 86.5 °C at 14:00 in case of MPSS with CB compared to CSS and CPSS
which had a peak value of Tw at 13:00 of 70 and 72 °C, respectively. The
heat capacity of MPSS with Cb water kept high values of temperature
for day late-hours even though sunset hours as the values reached 42,
9
Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997
33 and 30 °C in case of MPSS with CB, CPSS, and CSS, respectively.
The values of Tgo follow the same trend of Tw as all units had close
values in first five hours of measurements with small average difference
of 1.2 °C in the sake of MPSS with CB over CPSS as shown in Fig. 7-(c).
Also, the peak value was 56 °C at 14:00 in case of MPSS with CB but that
of CPSS and CSS were 50 and 49 °C, respectively, at 13:00. Moreover,
Tgo reached 35, 28 and 28 °C at 22:00 for MPSS with CB, CPSS, and CSS,
respectively.
The variation of m and md during the day are presented in Fig. 7-(d)
and Fig. 7-(e), respectively. Form , the values start with zero at 8:00
reaching peak values of 0.61, 0.65 kg/m2 at 13:00 for CSS and CPSS,
S.W. Sharshir, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997

Table 5. To get the average value of the water productivity cost, it is

Fig. 8. The daily thermal efficiency of tested units at various days of experi-
ments.
respectively, and 0.56 kg/m2 at 14:00 in case of MPSS with CB. By the
end of measurement at 22:00, values decrease to 0.001, 0.003 and
0.118 kg/m2 for CSS, CPSS and MPSS with CB, respectively. On the
other hand, the values of md vary from no gain at 8:00 to 3.24, 3.81 and
5.09 kg/m2 at 22:00 for CSS, CPSS and MPSS with CB, respectively. The
enhancement percentage in md is 33.59 and 57.098% in case of MPSS
with CB over CPSS and CSS, respectively. We can observe the con-
siderable improvement of the absorptivity, the decrease of the specific
heat and the increase of the thermal conductivity of CB nanofluid
compared to CuO nanofluid and also base fluid (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).
As a result, this will help the CB nanofluid to heat up quickly compared
to CuO nanofluid and base fluid and consequently increase the rate of
evaporation and then freshwater production.
4. Solar still efficiency
Thermal efficiency ( ) plays a vital role in predicting the perfor-
mance of different virtually designed of SSs. The daily efficiency, d , of
the SS is calculated by collection the hourly yield m , multiplied by the
latent heat of phase changehfg = 3225 kJ/kg, and the resulted amount
is divided by the total solar radiation I (t) through the glass surface area
A of the apparatus [13].
hfg × m
d =
A × I (t )
Fig. 8 illustrates that the daily thermal efficiency of the CSS was
about 30% for different days while it varied between 47 and 48 % for
CPSS and reached 50% in the case of MPSS. In contrary, for MPSS with
CuO and CB nanoparticles, it enhanced up to 61% and 64.5%, respec-
tively.
5. Cost evaluation
The constant price (CP) of the CSS is nearly about 85 $ USD as stated in
significant to know the variable price (VP) as well as the overall constant
price (OCP), where OCP = CP + VP. Consider VP equalize 0.3 CP yearly
according to [60], thereafter OCP = 85 + 0.30 × 85 × 10 = 340 $. The
average water production per day from the CSS was about 2.50 L/m2.day.
To calculate the annual cost of one liter of freshwater, we assumed the still
works about 340 days per year and the predicted life of the still time is
about ten years. The overall freshwater through the lifetime of the
still = 2.5 × 10 × 340 = 8500 L. The price of one liter of the freshwater
from CSS equals to 0.04 $ (340/8500). In addition, the total fixed and
variable costs when using the CPSS = 360 $ wherever the average fresh-
water can be predestined 3 L/m2 day. Furthermore, the total freshwater
through the life of CPSS is = 10200 L. The price of one litter from the
CPSS is 0.035 $ (360/ 10200). Whereas, when using MPSS; the total fixed
and variable costs = 500 $ and the average freshwater can be predestined
3.3 L/m2.day. The total freshwater through the life of MPSS is = 11220 L.
The price of 1 litter from the MPSS equals 0.044 $ (500/11220).
The total fixed and variable costs when using the MPSS with CB; the
total constant and variable costs = 540 $ and the average freshwater
can be predestined 4.3 L/m2.day. The total freshwater through the life
of MPSS with CB was = 14620 L. The price of one litter from the MPSS
with CB is 0.036$ (540/14620). Whereas, when using MPSS with CuO,
the value of OCP = 580 $, wherever the average freshwater can be
predestined 4 L/m2 day. Also, the total freshwater through the life of
MPSS with CuO was = 13600 L. The price of one litter from the MPSS
with CuO 0.042 $ (580/ 13600).
6. Conclusions
In this work, three SSs (CSS, CPSS, and MPSS) have been experi-
mentally fabricated and investigated to figure out the effect of using
evacuated tubes and nanoparticles on the performance of the PSS. Two
types of nanofluids (CuO and CB) with high thermophysical properties
and large surface area were proposed and integrated into the evacuated
tube-based PSS system to improve saline water heating and accelerate
its evaporation, as well as the freshwater productivity. Also, a com-
prehensive comparison in terms of system productivity, efficiency and
costs of the proposed MPSS systems (with and without nanomaterials),
CPSS, and CSS at the same operating conditions is presented.
The main results illustrated that the enhancement percentage in the
total freshwater was 4.77 and 26.6 in case of MPSS compared to CPSS
and CSS, respectively. Also, in case of MPSS with CuO, the total
freshwater improved by about 27.85% and 54.48% compared to CPSS
and CSS, respectively. In addition to that, using CB nanoparticles with
MPSS gave the best enhancement which increased the total freshwater
by about 33.59% and 57.098 compared to CPSS and CSS, respectively.
Furthermore, the daily thermal efficiency of MPSS alone and MPSS
integrated with CuO and CB nanoparticles was about 50%, 61%, and
64.5%, respectively. On the contrary, it was about 47–48% for CPSS
and 30% for CSS. Finally, the cost of one-liter freshwater was found to
be about 0.042 $, 0.035 $ for CSS and CPSS, respectively and 0.045 $,
0.042 $ and 0.036 $, respectively for MPSS, MPSS with CuO and MPSS
with CB.

Table 5
Illustrates cost analysis of different types of solar stills.
Unite CSS CPSS MPSS MPSS with CB MPSS with CuO

Total constant cost (CP), $ 85 90 125 135 145

Overall constant price (OCP), $ 340 360 500 540 580
Average production per day, L/m2 2.5 3 3.3 4.3 4
Total production during life time, L 8500 10,200 11,220 14,620 13,600
Cost per one liter, $ 0.04 0.035 0.044 0.036 0.042

10
S.W. Sharshir, et al.
Acknowledgments
N.Y. was sponsored by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No. 51576076 and No. 51711540031), Natural Science
Foundation of Hubei Province (2017CFA046) and Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2019kfyRCP045). The
authors thank the National Supercomputing Center in Tianjin (NSCC-
TJ) and China Scientific Computing Grid (ScGrid) for providing assis-
tance in computations.
References
[1] P. Vishwanath Kumar, A. Kumar, O. Prakash, A.K. Kaviti, Solar stills system design:
A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51 (2015) 153–181.
[2] M.S.S. Abujazar, S. Fatihah, I.A. Ibrahim, A.E. Kabeel, S. Sharil, Productivity
modelling of a developed inclined stepped solar still system based on actual per-
formance and using a cascaded forward neural network model, J. Cleaner Prod. 170
(2018) 147–159.
[3] M.M. Naim, M.A. Abd El Kawi, Non-conventional solar stills Part 1. Non-conven-
tional solar stills with charcoal particles as absorber medium, Desalination 153
(2003) 55–64.
[4] M. Abu-Arabi, M. Al-harahsheh, H. Mousa, Z. Alzghoul, Theoretical investigation of
solar desalination with solar still having phase change material and connected to a
solar collector, Desalination 448 (2018) 60–68.
[5] S.M. Elshamy, E.M.S. El-Said, Comparative study based on thermal, exergetic and
economic analyses of a tubular solar still with semi-circular corrugated absorber, J.
Cleaner Prod. 195 (2018) 328–339.
[6] T.-X. He, L.-J. Yan, Application of alternative energy integration technology in
seawater desalination, Desalination 249 (2009) 104–108.
[7] T. Arunkumar, K. Raj, D. Dsilva Winfred Rufuss, D. Denkenberger, G. Tingting,
L. Xuan, R. Velraj, A review of efficient high productivity solar stills, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 101 (2019) 197–220.
[8] S.W. Sharshir, N. Yang, G. Peng, A.E. Kabeel, Factors affecting solar stills pro-
ductivity and improvement techniques: A detailed review, Appl. Therm. Eng. 100
(2016) 267–284.
[9] S.W. Sharshir, G. Peng, L. Wu, F.A. Essa, A.E. Kabeel, N. Yang, The effects of flake
graphite nanoparticles, phase change material, and film cooling on the solar still
performance, Appl. Energy 191 (2017) 358–366.
[10] A.E. Kabeel, M. Abdelgaied, A. Eisa, Effect of graphite mass concentrations in a
mixture of graphite nanoparticles and paraffin wax as hybrid storage materials on
performances of solar still, Renew. Energy 132 (2019) 119–128.
[11] S.W. Sharshir, Y.M. Ellakany, A.M. Algazzar, A.H. Elsheikh, M.R. Elkadeem,
E.M.A. Edreis, A.S. Waly, R. Sathyamurthy, H. Panchal, M.S. Elashry, A mini review
of techniques used to improve the tubular solar still performance for solar water
desalination, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 124 (2019) 204–212.
[12] S.W. Sharshir, G. Peng, N. Yang, M.O.A. El-Samadony, A.E. Kabeel, A continuous
desalination system using humidification – dehumidification and a solar still with
an evacuated solar water heater, Appl. Therm. Eng. 104 (2016) 734–742.
[13] S.W. Sharshir, G. Peng, N. Yang, M.A. Eltawil, M.K.A. Ali, A.E. Kabeel, A hybrid
desalination system using humidification-dehumidification and solar stills in-
tegrated with evacuated solar water heater, Energy Convers. Manage. 124 (2016)
287–296.
[14] S.W. Sharshir, M.O.A. El-Samadony, G. Peng, N. Yang, F.A. Essa, M.H. Hamed,
A.E. Kabeel, Performance enhancement of wick solar still using rejected water from
humidification-dehumidification unit and film cooling, Appl. Therm. Eng. 108
(2016) 1268–1278.
[15] S. Abdallah, O.O. Badran, Sun tracking system for productivity enhancement of
solar still, Desalination 220 (2008) 669–676.
[16] R. Sathyamurthy, H.J. Kennady, P.K. Nagarajan, A. Ahsan, Factors affecting the
performance of triangular pyramid solar still, Desalination 344 (2014) 383–390.
[17] S. Yadav, K. Sudhakar, Different domestic designs of solar stills: A review, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 47 (2015) 718–731.
[18] M.A. Hamdan, A.M. Musa, B.A. Jubran, Performance of solar still under Jordanian
climate, Energy Convers. Manage. 40 (1999) 495–503.
[19] Y. Taamneh, M.M. Taamneh, Performance of pyramid-shaped solar still:
Experimental study, Desalination 291 (2012) 65–68.
[20] R. Sathyamurthy, S.A. El-Agouz, P.K. Nagarajan, J. Subramani, T. Arunkumar,
D. Mageshbabu, B. Madhu, R. Bharathwaaj, N. Prakash, A Review of integrating
solar collectors to solar still, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77 (2017) 1069–1097.
[21] M. Al-harahsheh, M. Abu-Arabi, H. Mousa, Z. Alzghoul, Solar desalination using
solar still enhanced by external solar collector and PCM, Appl. Therm. Eng. 128
(2018) 1030–1040.
[22] A. Abdessemed, C. Bougriou, D. Guerraiche, R. Abachi, Effects of tray shape of a
multi-stage solar still coupled to a parabolic concentrating solar collector in Algeria,
Renew. Energy 132 (2019) 1134–1140.
[23] O. Bait, Exergy, environ–economic and economic analyses of a tubular solar water
heater assisted solar still, J. Cleaner Prod. 212 (2019) 630–646.
[24] T. Rajaseenivasan, P. Nelson Raja, K. Srithar, An experimental investigation on a
solar still with an integrated flat plate collector, Desalination 347 (2014) 131–137.
[25] M. Fathy, H. Hassan, M. Salem Ahmed, Experimental study on the effect of coupling
parabolic trough collector with double slope solar still on its performance, Sol.
Energy 163 (2018) 54–61.
11
Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997
[26] K. Sampathkumar, T.V. Arjunan, P. Pitchandi, P. Senthilkumar, Active solar
distillation—A detailed review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 1503–1526.
[27] A.H. Elsheikh, S.W. Sharshir, M.E. Mostafa, F.A. Essa, M.K. Ahmed Ali, Applications
of nanofluids in solar energy: A review of recent advances, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 82 (2018) 3483–3502.
[28] S.W. Sharshir, G. Peng, A.H. Elsheikh, E.M.A. Edreis, M.A. Eltawil, T. Abdelhamid,
A.E. Kabeel, J. Zang, N. Yang, Energy and exergy analysis of solar stills with micro/
nano particles: A comparative study, Energy Convers. Manage. 177 (2018)
363–375.
[29] T. Elango, A. Kannan, K. Kalidasa Murugavel, Performance study on single basin
single slope solar still with different water nanofluids, Desalination 360 (2015)
45–51.
[30] S.W. Sharshir, G. Peng, L. Wu, N. Yang, F.A. Essa, A.H. Elsheikh, S.I.T. Mohamed,
A.E. Kabeel, Enhancing the solar still performance using nanofluids and glass cover
cooling: Experimental study, Appl. Therm. Eng. 113 (2017) 684–693.
[31] A.E. Kabeel, Z.M. Omara, F.A. Essa, Improving the performance of solar still by
using nanofluids and providing vacuum, Energy Convers. Manage. 86 (2014)
268–274.
[32] A. Zeiny, H. Jin, L. Bai, G. Lin, D. Wen, A comparative study of direct absorption
nanofluids for solar thermal applications, Sol. Energy 161 (2018) 74–82.
[33] D. Singh, E.V. Timofeeva, M.R. Moravek, S. Cingarapu, W. Yu, T. Fischer, S. Mathur,
Use of metallic nanoparticles to improve the thermophysical properties of organic
heat transfer fluids used in concentrated solar power, Sol. Energy 105 (2014)
468–478.
[34] J.M. Wu, J. Zhao, A review of nanofluid heat transfer and critical heat flux
enhancement—Research gap to engineering application, Prog. Nucl. Energy 66
(2013) 13–24.
[35] G. Xu, J. Fu, B. Dong, Y. Quan, G. Song, A novel method to measure thermal
conductivity of nanofluids, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 130 (2019) 978–988.
[36] M.U. Sajid, H.M. Ali, Thermal conductivity of hybrid nanofluids: A critical review,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 126 (2018) 211–234.
[37] M. Fakoor Pakdaman, M.A. Akhavan-Behabadi, P. Razi, An experimental in-
vestigation on thermo-physical properties and overall performance of MWCNT/heat
transfer oil nanofluid flow inside vertical helically coiled tubes, Exp. Therm Fluid
Sci. 40 (2012) 103–111.
[38] E. De Robertis, E.H.H. Cosme, R.S. Neves, A.Y. Kuznetsov, A.P.C. Campos,
S.M. Landi, C.A. Achete, Application of the modulated temperature differential
scanning calorimetry technique for the determination of the specific heat of copper
nanofluids, Appl. Therm. Eng. 41 (2012) 10–17.
[39] M. Gao, P.K.N. Connor, G.W. Ho, Plasmonic photothermic directed broadband
sunlight harnessing for seawater catalysis and desalination, Energy Environ. Sci. 9
(2016) 3151–3160.
[40] X. Wang, Y. He, X. Liu, L. Shi, J. Zhu, Investigation of photothermal heating enabled
by plasmonic nanofluids for direct solar steam generation, Sol. Energy 157 (2017)
35–46.
[41] V.-D. Dao, H.-S. Choi, Carbon-Based Sunlight Absorbers in Solar-Driven Steam
Generation Devices, Global Challenges 2 (2018) 1700094.
[42] X. Wang, Y. He, G. Cheng, L. Shi, X. Liu, J. Zhu, Direct vapor generation through
localized solar heating via carbon-nanotube nanofluid, Energy Convers. Manage.
130 (2016) 176–183.
[43] A.E. Kabeel, R. Sathyamurthy, S.W. Sharshir, A. Muthumanokar, H. Panchal,
N. Prakash, C. Prasad, S. Nandakumar, M.S. El Kady, Effect of water depth on a
novel absorber plate of pyramid solar still coated with TiO2 nano black paint, J.
Cleaner Prod. 213 (2019) 185–191.
[44] G. Peng, H. Ding, S.W. Sharshir, X. Li, H. Liu, D. Ma, L. Wu, J. Zang, H. Liu, W. Yu,
H. Xie, N. Yang, Low-cost high-efficiency solar steam generator by combining thin
film evaporation and heat localization: Both experimental and theoretical study,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 143 (2018) 1079–1084.
[45] A.H. Elsheikh, S.W. Sharshir, M.K. Ahmed Ali, J. Shaibo, E.M.A. Edreis,
T. Abdelhamid, C. Du, Z. Haiou, Thin film technology for solar steam generation: A
new dawn, Sol. Energy 177 (2019) 561–575.
[46] L. Shi, Y. He, Y. Huang, B. Jiang, Recyclable Fe3O4@CNT nanoparticles for high-
efficiency solar vapor generation, Energy Convers. Manage. 149 (2017) 401–408.
[47] Ravikanth S. Vajjha, Debendra K. Das, Experimental determination of thermal
conductivity of three nanofluids and development of new correlations, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 52 (2009) 4675–4682.
[48] Y. Ueki, K. Ueda, M. Shibahara, Thermal conductivity of suspension fluids of fine
carbon particles: Influence of sedimentation and aggregation diameter, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 127 (2018) 138–144.
[49] L. Sahota, G.N. Tiwari, Effect of nanofluids on the performance of passive double
slope solar still: A comparative study using characteristic curve, Desalination 388
(2016) 9–21.
[50] S.Z. Heris, S.G. Etemad, M.N. Esfahany, Convective heat transfer of a Cu/water
nanofluid flowing through a circular tube, Exp. Heat Transfer 22 (2009) 217–227.
[51] R.L. Hamilton, O.J.I. Crosser, E.c. Fundamentals thermal conductivity of hetero-
geneous two-component systems 1 (1962) 187–191.
[52] W.H. Qi, M.P. Wang, Q.H. Liu, Shape factor of nonspherical nanoparticles, J. Mater.
Sci. 40 (2005) 2737–2739.
[53] S.K. Das, S.U.S. Choi, A Review of Heat Transfer in Nanofluids, in: T.F. Irvine,
J.P. Hartnett (Eds.), Advances in Heat Transfer, Vol. 41 Elsevier, 2009, pp. 81–197.
[54] D.-H. Yoo, K.S. Hong, H.-S. Yang, Study of thermal conductivity of nanofluids for
the application of heat transfer fluids, Thermochim. Acta 455 (2007) 66–69.
[55] S. Lee, S.U.S. Choi, S. Li, J.A. Eastman, Measuring thermal conductivity of fluids
containing oxide nanoparticles, J. Heat Transf. 121 (1999) 280–289.
[56] S. Akilu, A.T. Baheta, A.A. Minea, K.V. Sharma, Rheology and thermal conductivity
of non-porous silica (SiO2) in viscous glycerol and ethylene glycol based nanofluids,
S.W. Sharshir, et al.
Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 88 (2017) 245–253.
[57] N.N. Esfahani, D. Toghraie, M. Afrand, A new correlation for predicting the thermal
conductivity of ZnO–Ag (50%–50%)/water hybrid nanofluid: An experimental
study, Powder Technol. 323 (2018) 367–373.
[58] M.H. Ahmadi, A. Mirlohi, M. Alhuyi Nazari, R. Ghasempour, A review of thermal
conductivity of various nanofluids, J. Mol. Liq. 265 (2018) 181–188.
12
Applied Thermal Engineering 160 (2019) 113997
[59] R.S. Vajjha, D.K. Das, A review and analysis on influence of temperature and
concentration of nanofluids on thermophysical properties, heat transfer and
pumping power, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 55 (2012) 4063–4078.
[60] Z.M. Omara, M.A. Eltawil, E.A. ElNashar, A new hybrid desalination system using
wicks/solar still and evacuated solar water heater, Desalination 325 (2013) 56–64.