Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Comparative analysis and experimental evaluation of single slope solar still T

augmented with permanent magnets and conventional solar still
Pankaj Dumka, Yash Kushwah, Aman Sharma, Dhananjay R. Mishra*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jaypee University of Engineering and Technology, A.B. Road, Guna - 473226, Madhya Pradesh, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Experimental and theoretical evaluation of conventional solar still (CSS) and CSS augmented with permanent
Desalination ferrite ring magnets (MSS) have been reported. Mathematical model proposed by Kumar & Tiwari has been used
Conventional solar still for the evaluation of internal heat transfer coefficients, internal efficiency, exergy efficiency, and exergy de-
Magnetized water struction. The average partial pressure difference between basin water and inner condensing cover surface for
Energy analysis
MSS has been found to be 77.99% higher than CSS when experiments were carried out for 13 h. The maximum
Exergy analysis
value of evaporative heat transfer coefficient of MSS leads over the CSS by 28.65% at 13:00 h. The distillate yield
recorded during the experimentation for MSS is 49.22% higher as compared to CSS. It seems that the magne-
tization of water has enhanced the overall internal efficiency and exergy efficiency of MSS over CSS by 49.17%
and 110.26% respectively. In MSS the presence of permanent magnets has remarkably reduced the exergy de-
struction in the basin area. Augmentation of magnets with the CSS has significantly enhanced the distillate
output of MSS. It has been found that the theoretical results obtained from Kumar & Tiwari numerical model are
in good agreement with the experimental results obtained from CSS and MSS.

Nomenclature m2-K)
hrw radiative heat transfer coefficient from water to glass(W/m2-
Ab basin area (m2) K)
cp specific heat at constant pressure (J/kg-K) h1w total internal heat transfer coefficient from water to glass
C constant (W/m2-K)
d characteristic length of solar still (m) I(t) incident solar radiation on inclined cover surface (W/m2)
Ex dest , basin exergy destruction in basin (W) k thermal conductivity of humid air (W/m-K)
Ex dest , glass exergy destruction in glass (W) L latent heat of vaporization (J/kg)
Ex dest , water exergy destruction in water (W) mew distillate output (kg/m2-h)
Ex evap exergy output of solar still (W) n constant
Ex in radiation exergy input (W) N number of reading samples
Ex insu exergy loss through insulation (W) Nu Nusselt Number
Ex trans (glass air ) exergy transfer from glass to atmosphere (W) Pci saturated vapor pressure on inner glass surface (Pa)
Ex trans (water glass) exergy transfer from water to glass (W) Pw saturated vapor pressure on water surface (Pa)
Ex water exergy utilized to raise the temperature of saline water (W) Pr Prandtl Number
Fcw convective heat transfer fraction qcw convective heat transfer rate from water to glass (W/m2)
Few evaporative heat transfer fraction qew evaporative heat transfer rate from water to glass (W/m2)
Frw radiative heat transfer fraction qrw radiative heat transfer rate from water to glass (W/m2)
g acceleration due to gravity (m/s2) qwater glass total heat transfer rate from water to glass (W/m2)
Gr Grashof Number Ta ambient temperature (°C)
hcw convective heat transfer coefficient from water to glass (W/ Tci inner glass cover temperature (°C)
m2-K) Tv average temperature of moist air (°C)
hew evaporative heat transfer coefficient from water to glass (W/ Tw temperature of water surface (°C)

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dhananjay.mishra@juet.ac.in (D.R. Mishra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.02.012
Received 5 December 2018; Received in revised form 19 February 2019; Accepted 19 February 2019
Available online 06 March 2019
0011-9164/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
P. Dumka, et al.
Greek
αb absorptivity of basin
αg absorptivity of glass
αw absorptivity of water
β expansion factor ( K−1)
ΔT′ effective temperature difference (°C)
ηi instantaneous thermal efficiency
μ dynamic viscosity of humid air (Ns/m2)
ρ density of humid air ( kg/m3)
σ Stefan Boltzmann constant ( W/m2-K4)
τg transmissivity of glass
τw transmissivity of water
εw emissivity of water surface
εci emissivity of glass surface
εeff effective emissivity
Abbreviations
ANN artificial neural network
CSS conventional solar still
FRP fiber reinforced plastic
MSS modified solar still
PV photo-voltaic
1. Introduction
The existence of human beings on earth depends on the availability
of fresh water. Our earth is surrounded by water but the irony is that,
only 0.36% of fresh water is available for direct consumption [1]. As
the population of the world is growing day by day, so to cater to the
need of people industrialization is growing more rapidly and hence the
problem of the water crisis is climbing up. So the only option left to
supply fresh water is from the sea by desalinating it. One simple green
option to desalinate seawater is by using solar energy. Solar stills are
one of the devices which uses solar energy to desalinate brackish or
seawater.
The passive solar stills which are also popularly called as conven-
tional solar stills (CSS) were first used by Wilson [2] to supply fresh
water to a nitrate mining community. The major drawback of CSS is its
poor distillate output and requirement of a large surface area. So this
problem inspired several researchers and scientists to develop new
ways to enhance distillate output and efficiency of CSS [3,4]. An in-
crease in daily distillate output by augmenting solar still with the earth
has been reported by Sodha et al. [5]. A detailed energy and exergy
analysis of single basin solar still integrated with the earth surface (with
and without ground polythene cover) has been reported by Dumka and
Mishra [6,7]. Arunkumar et al. [8] have studied the effect of bubble-
wrap (BW) and carbon impregnated foam (CIF) insulation on distillate
output of 0.5 m2 basin area single slope. Kabeel et al. [9] have reported
a comparative techno-economic study of different inorganic and or-
ganic PCM. A study CSS augmented with jute knitted sensible energy
storage under different water mass have been reported by Kabeel et al.
[10]. Mishra and Tiwari [11] have reported the effect of spreading coal
and metal chips within the basin area of a CSS. Ibrahim et al. [12] have
given a comprehensive review on absorption energy storage using (with
and without) crystallization of the absorption materials for single and
multi-effect distiller units. A comprehensive review on the use of nano-
fluids in CSS have been reported by Khanafer and Vafai [13]. Desh-
mukh and Thombre [14] have reported the use of servo-therm medium
oil and sand (as sensible heat storage material) beneath the basin liner.
Kabeel et al. [15] have reported an experimental and exergy analysis of
a passive water desalination system, with and without paraffin wax as
the phase change material in the basin and parabolic concentrator. A
detailed review of solar stills and its numerical solution of various
techniques such as utilizing nano-technology, reflectors, storage
35
Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45
materials, fan and fins for enhancement of distillate output have been
reported by Edalatpour et al. [16]. Impact of water depth on distillate
yield and internal heat transfer coefficients have been reported by Ti-
wari & Tiwar [17] for passive solar still, whereas for active solar still
Hossein et al. [18] have examined the problem. Jamil and Akhtar [19]
have reported the influence of characteristic length of solar still cavity
(aspect ratios from 1.94 to 2.67) on the distillate yield. A detailed
theoretical analysis of different climatic parameters on the productivity
of CSS have been reported by Afrand and Karimpour [20]. Impact of
cavity dimension on distillate yield in CSS by creating turbulence in
basin area with the help of stirrers (powered by PV panel) have been
investigated by Rajaseenivasan et al. [21]. Using ANN model, a hybrid
solar distiller unit integrated with an air compressor have been reported
by Hidouri et al. [22].
The effect of magnets and magnetic fields on the evaporation of
water have been carried out by many researcher and scientists in past,
and they have observed that magnetization has a positive impact on the
evaporation rate of water. Holysz et al. [23] have reported an increase
in evaporation rate of water when exposed to a static magnetic field
because of changes in the hydration shells of the ions in the presence of
magnetic field. The changes in the physicochemical properties of water
in a stationary magnetic field of 0.5 T in a flowing-circulated system has
been studied by Cai et al. [24]. They have observed that magnetic
treatment reduces the surface tension of water. They have also con-
cluded that more hydrogen bonds were formed due to magnetization
and the mean size of water clusters becomes larger than those which are
formed in the non-magnetized water. Guo et al. [25] have studied ex-
perimentally the influence of large gradient magnetic field on the
evaporation of water, and reported that the magnetic field will enhance
the evaporation rate of water significantly. Wang et al. [26] have re-
ported a decrease in specific heat and increase in evaporation amount
of tap water once magnetically treated. It is a well-established fact that
the evaporation from water surface significantly depends on the surface
tension of water, the lower the surface tension the higher the rate of
evaporation. Amor et al. [27] have studied the effect of magnetic
treatment on the surface tension and evaporation of irrigation water.
They have observed that the magnetization of water has decreased its
surface tension by 24% and increases its evaporation rate considerably
in comparison to non-magnetized water.
Literature review shows that, a lot of works have been done on
single-slope passive solar distiller units till date but no one has ex-
plicitly attempted to find the impact of magnets and magnetization of
water on the heat transfer coefficients and distillate output in a con-
ventional solar still. The objective of this experimental and theoretical
study is to improve the productivity of CSS by magnetization of water
with the help of permanent ferrous magnets. The effect of magnets on
the performance of modified solar still (MSS) i.e. the still containing
magnets are tested from 9:00 h to 21:00 h in the month of October 2018
and are compared with CSS. For theoretical analysis, Kumar & Tiwari
model has been used as it has the capability to accurately capture the
dynamic behaviour of pertinent parameters in the solar still.
2. Experimental setup
For experimentation, two identical single slope conventional solar
still were fabricated from 5 mm thick FRP material, whose higher and
lower vertical sides are of 0.48 and 0.2 m heights respectively. For basin
water, 0.74 mm thick Galvanized iron tray of 1 m × 1 m × 5 cm di-
mension is kept in both the stills. For better absorption of solar radia-
tions, the inner surface of stills and basin water tray were painted black.
Solar stills were covered with an iron transparent glass of 4 mm
thickness, at an inclination of 15.6° with the horizontal surface. During
the experiments one still (called as CSS (Conventional solar still)) is
kept as such, whereas in other still (called as MSS (Modified solar still)),
16 magnets were kept in the basin water tray. Both the stills are facing
toward the geographically south direction. The schematic arrangement
P. Dumka, et al. Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of CSS.

Fig. 4. Arrangement of magnets in basin water tray.

Table 1
Accuracy and range of measuring instruments used.
Instrument Accuracy Range

2
Solar power meter ± 5 W/m 0–2000 W/m2
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of MSS.
Thermocouple ± 0.1 °C −100–500 °C
Graduated cylinder ± 1 ml 0–250 ml
of CSS and MSS are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. Anemometer ± 0.5 m/s 0–30 m/s
Gauss meter ±1G 0–2000 kg
The magnets used are permanent ferrite ring magnets of dimensions
as shown in Fig. 3. The magnetic field strength of each magnet is 90 mT.
The magnets were arranged in the basin tray (Fig. 4) in such a way so cylinder and a GM816 Pocket LCD digital anemometer are used re-
that even distribution of magnetic field strength is possible. The field spectively. Operating range & accuracy of the instruments are shown in
strength of magnets was tested with the help of Digital Gaussmeter the Table 1.
(OMEGA). All the experiments were carried out for 13 h time (viz. 9:00 to
As the magnets are ferrous, so they will act in two folds i.e. on one 21:00 h) duration. At the end of each experiment, 20 kg of brackish
hand they will magnetize the water and on the other hand they will also water is fed into the basin tray of each solar still and left as such for 11 h
act as energy storage material. This will boost the efficiency of solar still (viz. 22:00 to 8:00 h) for the water to get magnetized and still to acquire
further. a steady state. Following observations were made during experiments:
Five K-type thermocouples (K 7/32-2C-TEF) were deployed in the
still for the measurement of the basin, atmospheric, inner glass, outer
• Basin, water, inner glass, outer glass, and atmospheric temperatures.
glass, water temperatures in both CSS and MSS. Different temperatures
• Intensity of incident solar radiation on inclined glass cover.
were recorded with the help of DTC324A-2 temperature indicator
• Wind velocity.
during the experimentation. During the experimentation, the incident
solar radiation was measured using TM-207 solar power meter. For the
• Distillate output at one hour interval.
measurement of distillate output and wind velocity, a graduated
3. Theoretical background

Fig. 3. Dimensions of a ring magnet.
The convective heat transfer rate from water to glass can be written
as:
qcw = hcw (Tw Tci) (1)
In case of passive solar still the natural convection occurs in the cavity,
where the flow regime is dictated by Grashof number (Gr). The relation
among Nu, Gr ( Eq.(A.1)), and Pr ( Eq.(A.2)) number is as follows:
hcw d
Nu = = C (Gr × Pr )n
k (2)
The moist air thermo-physical properties are evaluated using property
relations as reported by Tsilingiris [28]. Numerical magnitudes of C and
n are required to evaluate hcw. Many theoretical models are there to
calculate the numerical magnitude of C and n. In this manuscript, the
model proposed by Kumar and Tiwari [29] has been used. This model is
based on linear regression analysis, hence it is not limited to Gr range.
The inputs for this model are: distillate yield, solar radiation intensity,

36
P. Dumka, et al. Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45

water, glass and ambient air temperatures, and the output are the va- The variation of basin water, inner condensing cover and atmo-
lues of C and n. The values of C and n from this model are as follows (for spheric temperatures as a function of time for both CSS and MSS are
derivation, refer to Eqs. (A.4) to (A.7)): represented in Fig. 6. From 9:00 h to 11:00 h, the inner condensing
cover temperature is higher than the water temperature, and after
N( xy ) ( x ) × ( y)
n= 11:00 h the basin water temperature take its lead and maintain it
N ( x 2) ( x )2 (3) throughout the experimentation for both CSS and MSS. This is because
( y) ( x) of the fact that, the radiations start falling directly on the glass surface
C = exp n only after 8:00 h, so the glass heats up prior to water. At 9:00 h, the
N N (4)
inner glass temperatures of CSS is 5.06% higher than MSS, whereas the
Knowing hcw, the value of hew [29] can be evaluated as: basin water temperature of CSS is 21.05% higher than MSS. This lower
basin water temperature in MSS is due to the presence of ferrous
Pw Pci
hew = 0.016273 × hcw × magnets, which are also acting as an energy absorbing materials. The
Tw Tci (5)
maximum water and inner glass temperatures are attained at 13:00 h
thereafter, theoretical distillate yield can be written as: for both CSS and MSS and after that they start falling. At 13:00 h, the
basin water temperature in MSS is leading CSS by 13.03%, whereas the
hew × (Tw Tci) × 3600
mew =
(6) inner condensing cover temperature of MSS is leading CSS by 6.41%.
L
The average water temperature difference between MSS and CSS be-
Radiative heat transfer coefficient from water to inner glass surface is tween 13:00 h and 17:00 h is 6.9 °C, whereas this difference decreases
calculated as follows [6]: to 2.9 °C between 17:00 h and 21:00 h. At the end of the experiment, the
hrw = × × ((Tw + 273.15)2 + (Tci + 273.15)2) × (Tw + Tci + 546.2) basin water temperature in MSS has reduced to 26.7 °C i.e. 4.7% higher
eff
than CSS. Whereas the inner glass temperature of MSS has reduced to
(7) 23 °C i.e. 3.1% higher than that of CSS.
where, The variation of partial vapor pressure on the water and inner glass
1 1 1 cover in MSS and CSS are shown in Fig. 7. The partial pressure differ-
= + 1 ence between water and inner condensing cover is responsible for the
eff w ci (8)
distillate output in the still. The more this difference the more will be
Total internal heat transfer coefficient from water to inner glass surface the distillate output. Between 9:00 h and 11:00 h, this difference is
is defined as the sum of evaporative, convective, and radiative heat negative and at 11:00 h it is almost negligible. This is in accordance
transfer coefficients i.e.: with the temperature difference as shown in Fig. 6. The maximum
h1w = hcw + hew + hrw (9) difference between partial pressures in MSS is at 13:00 h which is
202.76% higher than the difference in CSS at the same time. Whereas
The overall heat transfer rate from water to inner glass surface can be the maximum partial pressure difference in CSS is 1 h later i.e. at
evaluated as: 14:00 h which is 45.87% lower than in comparison to MSS at the same
qwater = qew + qcw + qrw = h1w × (Tw Tci ) time. At 17:00 h, the partial pressure difference in MSS is 56.23%
glass (10)
higher than CSS. At the end of experiment MSS leads CSS by 21.62%.
The most influential mode of heat transfer within the still is in- The magnetization of water has substantially improved the partial
dicated by variation of energy fractions, which are evaluated as follows: pressure difference in MSS when compared with its CSS counterpart,
Few = qew / qwater which may be due to the reduction in the surface tension of magnetized
glass ; Fcw = qcw /qwater glass ; Frw = qrw / qwater glass (11)
water. The average partial pressure difference between basin water and
The instantaneous efficiency of a solar still is defined as the ratio of inner condensing cover surface for MSS leads over CSS by 77.99%.
thermal energy required to obtain a specific amount of distillate output The variation of evaporative heat transfer coefficient from water to
to that of total solar energy as input, and mathematically it is written as inner condensing cover as a function of time for both the stills is shown
[6]: in Fig. 8. From 9:00 h to 10:00 h and 20:00 h to 21:00 h, there is not
much difference in the numerical values of hew for MSS and CSS. But
mew × L
= between 10:00 and 20:00 h, the values of hew for MSS were significantly
(12)
i
I (t ) Ab × 3600
higher in comparison to CSS. At 11:00 h, MSS leads CSS by 30.01%. The
Exergy efficiency is defined as [30,6]: maximum value of hew for both the still is at 13:00 h, where MSS leads
CSS by 28.65%. The highest percent deviation of hew is evaluated at
Ex evap
= 14:00 h between MSS and CSS, where MSS leads CSS by 33.61%. At
(13)
Ex
Ex in 18:00 h, MSS leads CSS by 11.77%. On an average the augmentation of
Exergy destruction for basin area, glass surface and water can be magnets with the still has improved the hew of MSS by 23.56% in
evaluated as [7]: comparison to CSS. This is in agreement with the literature [24] which
says that magnetization of water will result in the variation of the mean
Ex dest , basin = ( g w b Ex in ) (Ex water + Exinsu ) (14) size of water clusters, which in turn enhances the evaporation rate.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of convective heat transfer coefficient
Ex dest , glass = ( g Ex in ) + Ex trans (water glass ) Extrans (glass air ) (15) from water to inner glass surface for both MSS and CSS as a function of
time. From 9:00 h to 10:00 h there is not much difference between the
Ex dest , water = ( g w Ex in ) + Ex water Extrans (water glass ) (16)
values of hcw for MSS and CSS, but after 10:00 h a steady rise in the
value of hcw has been observed for MSS. In CSS, the value of hcw initially
4. Observations, results and discussions reduces up to 11:00 h due to the sharp reduction of temperature and the
partial pressure difference between the water and inner condensing
The variation of solar radiation intensity with respect to time is surface. Partial pressure difference has evaluated as 51.59 Pa at 11:00 h
shown in Fig. 5 for 13 h experimentation i.e. from 9:00 h till 21:00 h. At which is 95.11% lower as compared to the partial pressure difference
the start of experiment, the measured value of solar radiation intensity observed at 10:00 h. Thereafter, it increases sharply till 12:00 h and
was 575 W/m2 which increases till 12:00 h where its value was remains close to an average value of 1.3 W/m2-K. The value of hcw
1009 W/m2, and thereafter smoothly reduces to 0 W/m2 by 18:00 h. decreases after 13:00 h at a very small rate of 0.0236 W/m2-K-h. On an

37
P. Dumka, et al. Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45

1100

1000

900

Solar radiatin intensity (W/m 2)

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time(h)

Fig. 5. Variation of solar radiation with respect to time.

70
Ta
65 Tw (CSS)
Tci (CSS)
60 Tw (MSS)
Tci (MSS)
55

50
Temperature (°C)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time (h)

Fig. 6. Variation of water, inner glass and atmospheric temperatures with respect to time.

average hcw for CSS has been insignificantly higher by 1.48% in com-
parison to MSS.
The evaluated values of hrw for both MSS and CSS as a function of
time are shown in Fig. 10. It has been observed that average value of hrw
for MSS is higher by 3.34% in comparison to CSS. This is because of the
elevated temperatures inside MSS in contrast to CSS.
Figs. 11 and 12 show the variation of total internal heat transfer
coefficient and energy fractions from water to inner condensing cover
as a function of time. It is very much eminent from Fig. 12 that the
maximum energy transfer mode from water to glass is hew followed by
hrw and the least contribution is that of hcw. That is why the curve of h1w
was dominated by hew and the nature of the curve is similar to that of
hew as shown in Fig. 8. On an average, the total internal heat transfer
coefficient for MSS leads CSS by 12.44%. Before 9:30 h, the radiative
heat transfer dominates over other modes (i.e evaporative and con-
vective). As solar radiation increases the water and glass surface tem-
perature difference also increases (Fig. 6) which results in higher rate of
evaporation and hence the evaporative heat transfer will start leading
and it will maintain it till 20:00 h. As after 13:00 h, the temperature
difference between water and inner condensing cover starts falling
which has resulted in trend reversal for the evaporative and radiative
heat transfer. The integration of magnets with the still have sig-
nificantly improved the evaporative and radiative rate of heat transfers,
and this is the reason for q1w of MSS to leads q1w of CSS by 55.39%
(Fig. 13).
Fig. 14 shows the variation of experimental and theoretical distillate
yield for MSS and CSS as a function of time. The recorded distillate
yield for MSS is 49.22% higher as compared to CSS viz. 1.346 l and
0.902 l respectively during 13 h experimental observations. Cumulative
theoretical distillate output obtained for MSS and CSS are only 7.3 and
6.1% lower than the recorded cumulative experimental distillate output
respectively. The reason for theoretical model (Kumar & Tiwari) to be
in close agreement with the experimental results is its ability to in-
corporate the actual influencing dynamic behaviour of CSS and MSS as
it incorporates variation of different forces (Buoyancy & viscous), dif-
fusivity (momentum & thermal) and heat transfer coefficient

38
P. Dumka, et al. Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45

104
3
2.8 Pw (CSS)
Pci (CSS)
Pw (MSS)
2.4 Pci (MSS)

Pressure (Pa) 2

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time (h)

Fig. 7. Variation of partial pressure in MSS and CSS with respect to time.

(conductive & convective) as a function of time. From 9:00 h to 11:00 h,
the distillate output obtained from CSS and MSS is almost the same i.e.
CSS leads MSS only by 3.33%. As the pressure difference between water
and inner glass surface at 11:00 h is very small (51.59 Pa for CSS and
226.28 Pa for MSS) so the distillate yield observed is lowest during the
experimentation and theoretical analysis. After 11:00 h, MSS leads CSS
and maintains it throughout the experimentation. The maximum dis-
tillate yield obtained experimentally is at 14:00 h, where MSS leads CSS
by 72.56%. At the end of experimentation MSS, leads CSS by 18.18%.
The magnetization of water by augmenting magnets with the still has
remarkably improved the distillate output, this stems the fact that
magnetization will reduce the surface tension of water remarkably.
Fig. 15 shows the variation of theoretical and experimental in-
stantaneous efficiencies of CSS and MSS as a function of time. At 9:00 h
the experimental efficiencies of CSS is higher by 12.22%, whereas its
theoretical efficiency is lower by 9.78% when compared with MSS. At
11:00 h as the distillate output is negligible, so the theoretical and
experimental efficiencies have dropped down to their lowest values of
0.4 and 1.2% for MSS and 0.1 and 1.37% for CSS respectively. After
11:00 h, MSS takes its lead over CSS and maintains it throughout the
experimentation. At 13:00 h, the theoretical and experimental effi-
ciency of MSS leads over CSS by 170.82% and 45.54% respectively. It
has observed that for MSS from 14:00 h to 16:00 h, the theoretical
distillate yield reduces 73.24% faster as compared to experimental yield
with respect to the incident solar radiations due to which the theore-
tical internal efficiency of MSS sharply decreases in comparison with
the experimental efficiency. Only that data till 16:00 h is represented, as
after 16:00 h the solar radiation intensity decreases very sharply in

25

CSS
MSS
Evaporative heat transfer coefficient(W/m2-K)

20

15

10

0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time(h)

Fig. 8. Variation of evaporative heat transfer coefficient from water to inner glass surface with respect to time.

39
P. Dumka, et al. Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45

1.5 CSS
MSS
1.4

Convective heat transfer coefficient(W/m2-K)

1.3

1.2

1.1

0.9

0.8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time(h)

Fig. 9. Variation of convective heat transfer coefficient from water to inner glass surface with respect to time.

comparison to distillate output which will leads to non-practical results.
At 16:00 h, the experimental and theoretical efficiency of MSS is higher
by 58.71% and 20.51% in comparison to CSS. The magnetization of
water has significantly improved the mean internal efficiency of MSS by
49.17%.
The term exergy is the maximum possible useful work obtainable
from a system during a process in which it comes in equilibrium with
the surroundings. In other words, exergy is the part of energy that is
available to be used. Determining exergy and exergy efficiency is the
primary goal in thermodynamic systems. Fig. 16 shows the variation of
exergy efficiency for MSS and CSS as a function of time. Magnetization
of water has substantially improved the exergy efficiency of MSS in
comparison to CSS. From 9:00 to 11:00 h, the exergy efficiency of MSS
is marginally higher than CSS, but after 11:00 h, the MSS shows a tre-
mendous rise in exergy efficiency in comparison to CSS. At 12:00 h MSS
leads CSS by 52.86%. The maximum rise in exergy efficiency for MSS is
at 13:00 h (between 9:00 h and 16:00 h) where it leads CSS by 259.92%,
whereas for CSS it is at 14:00 h where it lags MSS by 53.37%. At
16:00 h, MSS leads CSS by 66.3%. Overall, the magnetization of water
has improved the exergy efficiency of MSS by 110.26% in comparison
to CSS.
The actual performance of a solar still can also be judged by the
amount of exergy destruction in its different sections. Fig. 17 represents
the exergy destruction at basin, inner condensing cover and water for

7.2
CSS
7
MSS
Radiative heat transfer coefficient (W/m 2 - K)

6.7

6.4

6.1

5.8

5.5

5.2

4.9

4.6
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time(h)

Fig. 10. Variation of radiative heat transfer coefficient from water to inner glass surface with respect to time.

40
P. Dumka, et al. Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45

34
33 CSS

Total internal heat transfer coefficient (W / m 2 -K)

31 MSS

29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time(h)

Fig. 11. Variation of total heat transfer coefficient from water to inner glass surface with respect to time.

1
Few(CSS)
0.9
Fcw(CSS)
0.8
Frw(CSS)
0.7 Few(MSS)
Energy fractions

0.6 Fcw(MSS)
0.5 Frw(MSS)

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time (h)

Fig. 12. Variation of energy fractions from water to inner glass surface with respect to time.

250
240 CSS
MSS
210
Total heat transfer rate(W/m2)

180

150

120

90

60

30

0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time(h)

Fig. 13. Variation of total heat transfer rate from water to inner glass surface with respect to time.

41
P. Dumka, et al. Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45

0.3
0.27 Theoretical-CSS
Experimental-CSS
0.24 Theoretical-MSS

Yield (kg/m2-h)
Experimental-MSS
0.21
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.03
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time (h)

Fig. 14. Variation of distillate yield with respect to time.

30 CSSTh
CSSExp
MSS Th
25
MSS Exp
Internal efficiency (%)

20

15

10

0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time (h)

Fig. 15. Variation of internal efficiency with respect to time.

2
CSS
1.8 MSS

1.6

1.4
Exergy efficiency(%)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time(h)

Fig. 16. Variation of exergy efficiency with respect to time.

42
P. Dumka, et al. Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45

650
water CSS
600
basin CSS
550 glass CSS
500 water MSS
basin MSS
450
Exergy destruction (W)
glass MSS
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Time (h)

Fig. 17. Variation of exergy destruction for water, inner condensing cover and basin with respect to time.

MSS and CSS as function of time. It has been observed that the highest
exergy destruction occurs in the basin area and minimum in glass and
water. The maximum exergy destruction in the basin area for MSS is at
11:00 h (that is why the least distillate output) i.e. 578.78 W which is
4.83% lower than CSS. It shows that the magnetization of water by
integrating still with permanent magnets has considerably reduced the
exergy destruction in basin area of MSS. The maximum value of exergy
destruction in glass and water for CSS are 35.67 W and 40.25 W re-
spectively, whereas for MSS these are 31.51 and 39.99 W respectively.
5. Conclusions
Two identical conventional solar stills were experimentally and
numerically investigated under Guna (India) weather conditions.
Sixteen permanent ferrous magnets were placed in one still (known as
MSS) to magnetize the water. This magnetization resulted in higher
internal heat transfer coefficients along as well as distillate output. On
the basis of experimental, and theoretical analysis of MSS and CSS
following conclusions can be drawn:
pressure difference between water and inner condensing cover in
MSS as compared to CSS (is about 77.99%).
(iv) The evaporative heat transfer coefficient has the major con-
tribution in the total heat transfer coefficient.
(v) The magnetization of water has improved the hew of MSS by
23.56% in comparison to CSS.
(vi) The overall internal efficiency of MSS has improved by 49.17% as
compared to CSS.
(vii) MSS has 110.26% higher exergy efficiency as compared to CSS.
(viii) The maximum exergy destruction occurs in the basin area, but
magnetization has considerably reduced the exergy destruction in
the basin area of MSS as compared to CSS.
Hence, it may be concluded that the use of magnets in a solar still
can enhance the distillate output of conventional solar still and may
make a solar still more productive and efficient.
Acknowledgments

(i) MSS shows 49.22% higher distillate yield in comparison to CSS.
(ii) Observed distillate yields of MSS and CSS during the experi-
mentation are 8.0% and 7.43% higher as compared to the eval-
uated yield for the same time duration respectively.
(iii) Magnetization (of water) has significantly improved the partial
Authors are grateful to Padmashri Prof. M. S. Sodha, Dr. Salil Modak
and Prof. P. K. Mishra for their valuable comments and suggestions
during experiments design and manuscript proof reading. Authors are
also very grateful to reviewers for significant improvement in manu-
script.

Appendix A

Grashof and Prandtl Numbers:

g 2d3 T
Gr =
µ2 (A.1)
µcp
Pr =
k (A.2)
Effective temperature difference:
(Pw Pci)(Tw + 273)
T = Tw Tci +
(2.689 × 105 Pw ) (A.3)
For Kumar and Tiwari model [29]:
k 3600
mew = 0.0163(Pw Pci) C . (Gr . Pr ) n
d L (A.4)

43
P. Dumka, et al. Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45

mew
ln = ln(C ) + n. ln(Gr . Pr )
R (A.5)
where,
k 3600
R = 0.0163(Pw Pci)
d L (A.6)
y = a + n. x (A.7)
where,
y = ln(mew / R), a = ln(C ), x = ln(Gr . Pr )
Thermo-physical properties of moist air [28]:

Pci = (A 4 × Tci4 + A3 × Tci3 + A2 × Tci2 + A1 × Tci + A0) × 103 A0 = 1.131439334

Pw = (A 4 × Tw4 + A3 × Tw3 + A2 × Tw2 + A1 × Tw + A0) × 103 A1 = −3.750393331 × 10−2
A2 = 5.591559189 × 10−3
A3 = − 6.220459433 × 10−5
A4 = 1.10581611 × 10−6

= B3 × Tv3 + B2 × Tv2 + B1 × Tv + B 0 B0 = 1.299995662

B1 = − 6.043625845 × 10−3
B2 = 4.697926602 × 10−5
B3 = −5.760867827 × 10−7
µ = C 4 × Tv4 + C 3 × Tv3 + C 2 × Tv2 + C1 × Tv + C 0 C0 = 1.6857317 × 10−5
C1 = 9.151853945 × 10−8
C2 = − 2.162762 × 10−9
C3 = 3.4139225 × 10−11
C4 = −
2.644372665 × 10−13
cp = (D 4 × Tv4 + D3 × Tv3 + D4 × Tv2 + D1 × Tv + D0) × 103 D0 = 1.088022802
D1 = −0.01057758092
D2 = 4.769110559 × 10−4
D3 = − 7.898561559 × 10−6
D4 = 5.122303796 × 10−8
k = E 3 × Tv3 + E 2 × Tv2 + E1 × Tv + E 0 E0 = 0.02416826077
E1 = 5.526004579 × 10−5
E2 = 4.631207189 × 10−7
E3 = − 9.489325324 × 10−9
L = (2503.943143 − 2.451556893 × Tv) × 103

References
[1] WWC, No Title, Tech. rep. 2017.
[2] G.N. Tiwari, A.K. Tiwari, Solar Distillation Practice for Water Desalination Systems,
Anamaya, New Delhi, India, 2008.
[3] A.E. Kabeel, S.A. El-Agouz, Review of researches and developments on solar stills,
Desalination 276 (1-3) (2011) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.03.042.
[4] G.M. Ayoub, L. Malaeb, Developments in solar still desalination systems: a critical review,
Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (19) (2012) 2078–2112, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10643389.2011.574104.
[5] M.S. Sodha, D.R. Mishra, A.K. Tiwari, Solar earth water still for highly wet ground, J
Fundam Renew Energy Appl 4 (1.e103) (2014) 1–2, https://doi.org/10.4172/2090-4541.
1000e103 http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/fundamentals-renewable-energy-
applications.php.
[6] P. Dumka, D.R. Mishra, Energy and exergy analysis of conventional and modified solar
still integrated with sand bed earth: study of heat and mass transfer, Desalination 437
(December 2017) (2018) 15–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.02.026 http://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0011916417327595.
[7] P. Dumka, D.R. Mishra, Experimental investigation of modified single slope solar still
integrated with earth (I) &(II): Energy and exergy analysis, Energy 160 (2018)
1144–1157, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.07.083 https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544218313781.
[8] T. Arunkumar, A. Kabeel, K. Raj, D. Denkenberger, R. Sathyamurthy, P. Ragupathy,
R. Velraj, Productivity enhancement of solar still by using porous absorber with bubble-
wrap insulation, J. Clean. Prod. 195 (2018) 1149–1161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.05.199 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0959652618315452?via{%}3Dihub.
[9] A. Kabeel, Y. El-Samadony, W.M. El-Maghlany, Comparative study on the solar still
performance utilizing different PCM, Desalination 432 (2018) 89–96, https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.DESAL.2018.01.016 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0011916417324803.
[10] A.E. Kabeel, S.A. El-Agouz, R. Sathyamurthy, T. Arunkumar, Augmenting the productivity
of solar still using jute cloth knitted with sand heat energy storage, Desalination 443
(May) (2018) 122–129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.05.026 https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.desal.2018.05.026.
[11] D.R. Mishra, A.K. Tiwari, Effect of coal and metal chip on the solar still, J. Sci. Tech. Res.
3 (1) (2013) 1–6.
[12] N.I. Ibrahim, F.A. Al-Sulaiman, F.N. Ani, Solar absorption systems with integrated ab-
sorption energy storage—a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 1602–1610,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.005.
[13] K. Khanafer, K. Vafai, A review on the applications of nanofluids in solar energy field,
Renew. Energy 123 (2018) 398–406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.097.
[14] H.S. Deshmukh, S.B. Thombre, Solar distillation with single basin solar still using sensible
heat storage materials, Desalination 410 (2017) 91–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.
2017.01.030.
[15] A.E. Kabeel, M. Elkelawy, H. Alm El Din, A. Alghrubah, Investigation of exergy and yield
of a passive solar water desalination system with a parabolic concentrator incorporated
with latent heat storage medium, Energy Convers. Manag. (2017), https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2017.04.085.
[16] M. Edalatpour, K. Aryana, A. Kianifar, G.N. Tiwari, O. Mahian, S. Wongwises, Solar stills:
a review of the latest developments in numerical simulations, Sol. Energy 135 (2016)
897–922, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.005.
[17] A.K. Tiwari, G.N. Tiwari, Effect of water depths on heat and mass transfer in a passive
solar still: in summer climatic condition, Desalination 195 (1-3) (2006) 78–94, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.11.014.
[18] H. Taghvaei, H. Taghvaei, K. Jafarpur, M.R. Karimi Estahbanati, M. Feilizadeh,
M. Feilizadeh, A. Seddigh Ardekani, A thorough investigation of the effects of water depth
on the performance of active solar stills, Desalination 347 (2014) 77–85, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2014.05.038.
[19] B. Jamil, N. Akhtar, Effect of specific height on the performance of a single slope solar
still: an experimental study, Desalination 414 (2017) 73–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.03.036.
[20] M. Afrand, A. Karimipour, Theoretical analysis of various climatic parameter effects on
performance of a basin solar still, J. Power Technol. 97 (1) (2017) 44–51.
[21] T. Rajaseenivasan, R. Prakash, K. Vijayakumar, K. Srithar, Mathematical and experi-
mental investigation on the influence of basin height variation and stirring of water by
solar PV panels in solar still, Desalination 415 (February) (2017) 67–75, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2017.04.010.
[22] K. Hidouri, D.R. Mishra, A. Benhmidene, B. Chouachi, Experimental and theoretical
evaluation of a hybrid solar still integrated with an air compressor using ANN, Desalin.
Water Treat. 88 (January) (2017) 52–59, https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.21333.
[23] L. Holysz, A. Szczes, E. Chibowski, Effects of a static magnetic field on water and elec-
trolyte solutions, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 316 (2) (2007) 996–1002, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcis.2007.08.026.
[24] R. Cai, H. Yang, J. He, W. Zhu, The effects of magnetic fields on water molecular

44
P. Dumka, et al.
hydrogen bonds, J. Mol. Struct. 938 (2009) 15–19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.
2009.08.037.
[25] Y.Z. Guo, D.C. Yin, H.L. Cao, J.Y. Shi, C.Y. Zhang, Y.M. Liu, H.H. Huang, Y. Liu, Y. Wang,
W.H. Guo, A.R. Qian, P. Shang, Evaporation rate of water as a function of a magnetic field
and field gradient, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13 (2012) 16916–16928, https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijms131216916.
[26] Y. Wang, H. Wei, Z. Li, Effect of magnetic field on the physical properties of water, Results
Phys. 8 (2018) 262–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2017.12.022.
[27] H.B. Amor, A. Elaoud, N.B. Salah, K. Elmoueddeb, Effect of magnetic treatment on surface
45
Desalination 459 (2019) 34–45
tension and water evaporation, Int. J. Adv. Ind. Eng. 5 (3) (2017) 119–124, https://doi.
org/10.14741/Ijae/5.3.4.
[28] P.T. Tsilingiris, The influence of binary mixture thermophysical properties in the analysis
of heat and mass transfer processes in solar distillation systems, Sol. Energy 81 (2007)
1482–1491, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2007.02.005.
[29] S. Kumar, G.N. Tiwari, Estimation of convective mass transfer in solar distillation systems,
Sol. Energy 57 (6) (1996) 459–464, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(96)00122-3.
[30] R. Petela, Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation, Sol. Energy 74 (6) (2003) 469–488,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(03)00226-3.