4.7 Article

Performance evaluation of a modified pyramid solar still employing wick, reflectors, glass cooling and TiO2 nanomaterial

期刊

DESALINATION
卷 539, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2022.115939

关键词

Solarstill; Modifiedpyramidsolarstill; Wickmaterial; Glasscooling; Reflectors; Nanoparticles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, two pyramid-shaped solar still units were experimentally tested, with one being a traditional unit and the other a modified unit. The modified unit showed better performance compared to the traditional unit, with significantly higher total productivity and thermal efficiency during the day. Additionally, the cost per liter was lower for the modified unit compared to the traditional unit.
In this work pyramid-shaped two solar still units were tested experimentally, one of them is a traditional unit and the other is a modified pyramid solar still unit with wick material, reflectors, glass cover cooling, and adding nano-TiO2 particles. Five cases for modified pyramid solar still were considered, MPSS-Case 1 (modified pyramid solar still with hanging wick), MPSS-Case 2 (modified pyramid solar still with hanging wick and glass cooling), MPSS-Case 3 (modified pyramid solar still with hanging wick and reflectors), MPSS-Case 4 (modified pyramid solar still with hanging wick, glass cooling, and reflectors), and Case 5 (modified pyramid solar still with hanging wick, glass cooling, reflectors, and nano-Tio(2) particles). The performance of MPSS-Case 5 was the best when compared with the other cases. The total productivity during the day for the Traditional Solar Still (TSS) was 3080 ml/m(2)/day and for the Modified Pyramid Solar Still Case 5 (MPSS-Case 5) was 7000 ml/m(2)/day, which means that the yield of the modified unit enhanced by 127.27 % over TSS. Additionally, the daily thermal efficiency was 83.8 %, 37.87 % for MPSS-Case 5 and TSS, respectively. The cost per liter for MPSS-Case 5 was 0.021$ which is lower than that for TSS by about 52.38 %.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据