Desalination of RO Reject from Textile Industry: Development and 4 E

Analysis of Humidification Dehumidification System using Solar-

Assisted Air Heating
Nilesh S Wakchaure Purnanand V Bhale* Rohan R Pande
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, SVNIT, Surat
*Corresponding Author: pvbhale@med.svnit.ac.in
Abstract

RO rejects water from textile industries located in landlocked regions containing high TDS,
raising serious environmental concerns. To address this concern, solar-assisted humidification
dehumidification desalination (SA-HDH) is one of the promising options. However,
conventional methods often rely on high-energy inputs that too based on fossil fuels. This
study investigates the development of a sustainable solar air-heated humidification–-
dehumidification desalination (HDH) process using a single-ended open evacuated tube
collector (SEO-ETC). An experimental evaluation was conducted to assess the system's
performance. The key parameters were analyzed, including freshwater production rate,
energy efficiency, exergy efficiency, humidification rate, economic analysis, overall CO2
mitigation, and the impact of solar radiation on performance. The current study was
experimentally investigated at different mass flow rate ratios of MfR= 2, 2.5, and 3 by varying
air flow rates in open and closed loop configurations. The finding shows a significantly higher
humidification rate and freshwater yield in a closed-loop air circulation compared with open-
loop mode. Also, it was observed that the increasing air temperature inlet to the humidifier
positively impacts the system performance. The results revealed that the system performs
better in the optimum value of MfR= 2.5 in a closed-loop configuration. The freshwater yield
of 3.12 kg/m2-day (8.89 kg/kWh) was obtained at an MfR of 2.5 in closed-loop configurations.
The energy and exergy efficiency in closed loop configuration at optimum MfR values were
found to be 26.41% and 3.09%, respectively. The overall CO2 mitigation at optimum MfR was
182.6 tons for 20 years of considered systems life. The cost of freshwater of 0.018 $/kg was
obtained at an MfR of 2.5 in closed-loop configurations, attributed to the higher freshwater
yield. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of a solar HDH system with a Solar Air Heater
(SAH) for sustainable RO-reject water desalination.

Keywords: Desalination, Humidification dehumidification, Energy and exergy analysis, CO2

mitigation, Humidification rate, Specific water production
1
Nomenclature

Acronyms

DBT Dry bulb temperature

DPT Dew point temperature
ETC Evacuated tube collector
FTHE Finned tube heat exchanger
GOR Gained output ratio
HDH Humidification dehumidification desalination
HP Heat pump
MfR Mass flow rate ratio
PTSC Parabolic trough solar collector
SAH Solar air heater
SA-HDH Solar-assisted humidification dehumidification desalination
SEO Single-ended open
SFF Sinking fund factor
Symbols

𝑚̇ Mass flow rate (kg/hr)

Ac Collector area (m2)
CAC Annual capital cost ($/year)
CAM Annual Maintenance cost ($/year)
CAR Annual running cost ($/year)
CAS Annual Salvage cost ($/year)
Csv Annual salvage value ($/year)
CTA Total annual cost ($/year)
h Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
hfg Latent heat (kJ/kg)
IT Solar intensity (W/m2)
r Rate of interest (%)
T Temperature (°C)
TLS Total life span of the system (years)
U Uncertainty (-)
Y Annual freshwater yield (L/year)
Z Capital cost of the system ($)
Greek

Capital recovery factor

ω Humidity ratio (kg/kg of dry air)
ε Effectiveness
η Efficiency
2
Subscripts

a Air
amb Ambient
cw Cooling water
deh Dehumidifier
fw Freshwater
hum Humidifier
in Inlet
out Outlet

1 Introduction
Water scarcity is a pressing global challenge, with an increasing number of regions
facing it. In the near future, the world will face two significant challenges: water
scarcity and energy shortages; these issues play a critical role in the overall economic
development of any nation. Desalination technologies offer a solution for converting
saline water into a sustainable source of freshwater [1]. However, conventional
desalination methods, such as Multi-Effect Desalination (MED), Multistage Flash
Desalination (MSF), and Reverse Osmosis (RO), often require significant energy
inputs, raising concerns regarding possible energy shortages as well as high
production cost and are generally designed for large-scale operations, making them
less suitable for small and decentralized systems. HDH systems are highly adaptable
for decentralized small-scale applications and can be easily coupled with renewable
energy sources like solar and wind, addressing both water and energy challenges [2].
This integration of humidification–-dehumidification (HDH) desalination with
renewable resources like solar energy reduces the environmental impact, offering a
sustainable solution to water scarcity by reducing the carbon footprint by utilizing
low-grade heat sources [3]. Therefore, the overall efficiency of the system increases by
the combination of solar energy with the HDH system, and therefore, solar energy-
powered water desalination is considered a good approach among all the water
desalination technologies [4], [5].

The main components of HDH systems are humidifiers, dehumidifiers, and heat
sources. A humidifier comprises a packing material, where heat and mass transfer

3
occur between air and saline water, and air becomes humidified. The selection of
appropriate packing material is crucial for enhancing the humidifier's efficiency. In
the dehumidifier, different types of heat exchangers are used for condensation of
humid air, resulting in freshwater production. The heat source is utilized to heat the
air and water. Air temperature plays a vital role in humidifying the air. Air heating
through electrical energy is a costlier affair, so air heating can be done using renewable
energy, specifically solar energy, through solar thermal techniques.

Surat is a textile capital of India where many textile industries are using water jet
looms processing their waste water at Common Effluent Treatment Plants. However,
several textile industries using water jet looms in the landlocked regions (not
connected with central water treatment plants) often rely on high TDS ground water
normally pumped thorough bore wells in the unit premises and find it challenging to
connect with Common Effluent Treatment Plants for RO reject disposal. The
groundwater samples collected from different zones of costal city Surat revealed that
the groundwater has very high salinity due to the sea vicinity. The water jet loom
machines require water with TDS levels below 200. After processing water in RO, the
RO rejection often exceeds the permissible limit as per the Gujarat Pollution Control
Board (GPCB) norms. Textile RO rejects water typically containing high TDS brine,
posing significant environmental and public health concerns. Currently, electrical
evaporators are used to treat high TDS RO reject water in the landlocked region.
However, this method is neither affordable nor thermodynamically efficient. To
address this challenge, the solar-assisted humidification dehumidification (HDH)
method offers a promising solution for water recovery from RO rejects.

Several investigations about different types of HDH desalination systems have been
studied to increase the freshwater production. Nematollahi et al. [6] studied energy
and exergy analysis for a solar air-heated HDH system. A flat plate solar collector was
used to heat the air, and the air was humidified in a packed bed humidification tower.
The system’s overall exergy efficiency increases with an increase in tower diameter
and a reduction in air temperature. In order to maintain a constant temperature,
Summers et al. [7] investigated a solar air collector HDH desalination cycle using
phase change material. In-built storage showed great promise in supplying hot air

4
throughout the day and night. Li et al. [8] investigated a small-scale HDH system
using a solar air heater with evacuated tubes. The findings demonstrated that the
change in spray water temperature from 9°C to 27°C enhanced the air relative
humidity from 89% to 97% and its temperature from 35°C to 42°C. Furthermore, it can
be concluded that, for a given air flow rate and cooling medium, higher air
temperature and relative humidity can increase freshwater production. A novel solar
HDH system coupled with a bubble column humidifier, heat pipe, and evacuated tube
collector was experimentally studied by Behnam and Shafi [9]. The system achieved a
maximum daily freshwater production of 6.275 kg/m2-day with an efficiency of 65%
at a cost of 0.028 $/kg. Elminshawy et al. [10] experimentally and analytically studied
a novel solar HDH system for productivity augmentation. The results indicated that
the system's productivity improves using water heaters and reflectors. The estimated
freshwater cost was 0.035 $/kg. Abedi et al. [11] investigated a solar-assisted HDH
system comprised of a solar air heater and a packed bed humidifier. The study
suggested that solar collectors with an area of 3.5 m2 in arid regions have the
significant potential to treat 30 tons of water and reduce CO2 emissions by 150 kg
annually. Bacha [12] thermodynamically analyzed semi-open-air circulation HDH
system. The result revealed the highest gained output ratio (GOR) of 3.7 with an air
heater and semi-open-air mode at a temperature of 50°C. Antar and Sharqawy [13]
investigated single and dual-stage air-heated HDH systems using evacuated tube
solar air heaters. The heat loss and pressure drop greatly influenced the system
performance in the pipe fittings. Srithar and Rajaseenivasan [14] investigated the solar
assisted HDH system with solar air heaters having three different turbulators attached
to the absorber plate. Three types of turbulators, namely circular, semi-circular
(convex), and semi-circular (concave), were attached to the solar air heater absorber
plate to investigate the humidifier performance. The semi-circular (concave)
turbulators achieved a maximum freshwater of 20.61 kg/m2-day which is 26.3%
higher than the conventional system. It was observed that a maximum humidity ratio
difference of 0.187 kg/kg of dry air with turbulators, compared to 0.11 kg/kg of dry
air without tabulators. Al-Sulaiman et al. [15] studied a thermodynamic analysis of an
air-heated HDH system using a parabolic trough solar collector. Two configurations
for heating integrated with the HDH system were examined: Configuration 1 involves

5
heating the air before it enters the humidifier, whereas configuration 2 heats the air
after the humidifier in the parabolic trough solar collector. The GOR of configurations
1 and 2 were 1.5 and 4.7, respectively. Mohamed and EI-Minshawy [16] investigated
the performance of HDH systems with solar parabolic trough collectors. The
maximum freshwater yield was found in the summer season, and collector efficiency
was a function of the solar intensity. Open-air HDH desalination systems driven by
heat pump was investigated by Lawal et al. [17]. Three systems were studied, i.e., the
basic system, system A (pre-heating saline water), and system B (pre-heating ambient
air). System A demonstrated a maximum GOR of 5.06, freshwater yield of 11.45 kg/h,
and a minimum freshwater cost of 12.38 $/m3. Lawal et al. [18] studied HP-HDH
systems for air-heated and water-heated using a predictive model. With 0.8
components effectiveness, water-heated and air-heated HP-HDH achieved optimal
GOR values of 7.63 and 8.88, respectively. The authors concluded that freshwater
productivity keeps reducing with the increase in the value of M fR and increases by
increasing the feed seawater temperature. El-said et al. [19] studied a solar-assisted
HDH system. In this study, porous activated carbon tubes were used in the packed
bed humidifier. An evacuated tube solar water heater was used to heat the water, and
a flat plate collector was used to heat the air. The maximum freshwater yield of 6.12
kg/day was achieved with corresponding energy, exergy efficiencies of 26.73%,
1.57%, and a GOR of 1.24. The freshwater cost was determined to be 0.01386 $/kg.
HDH desalination systems with natural and forced air circulation were studied by
Kabeel et al. [20]. The results revealed that the maximum freshwater yield was
obtained when the ratio of cold-water temperature at the dehumidifier inlet and hot-
water temperature at the humidifier inlet is twice. Zaman et al. [16] studied the
multistage HDH process to improve system efficiency. The productivity increased by
20% compared to the single-stage unit. The freshwater yield in summer reached 580
kg/day. Hamed et al. [21] studied mathematical and experimental investigations on
solar HDH systems. The results concluded that the productivity of the HDH system
improves with an increase in saline water temperature before entering the humidifier.
The average freshwater yield of 22 kg/day was obtained (11 L/ m2-day) with an
estimated freshwater cost of 0.0578 $/kg.

6
Based on the review of existing literature, it is evident that most of the prior research
has focused on optimizing the HDH system, humidifier designs, and different types
of solar collectors with the desalination process. The aim of this study is an
experimental investigation of the SA-HDH desalination system for RO reject water
from the textile industry with a single-ended open-evacuated tube collector (SEO-
ETC). The sample of RO reject water is collected from textile industries in the
landlocked regions of Surat City, and used to study the SA-HDH system. The SEO-
ETC is simple in construction, high thermal efficiency, and lower thermal losses. Due
to the benefits mentioned above, evacuated tubes are used for air-heating purposes in
the current system. The current experimental setup uses open and closed loop
configuration for air circulation whereas, closed loop configuration for water
circulation. It includes energy, exergy, environmental, and economic analysis. The
various performance parameters, including open and closed loop and mass flow rate
ratios, are varied to analyze the system performance. The SEO-ETC is used for air
heating, further enhancing the humidifier's humidification rate and thereby
increasing the humidity ratio (kg/kg of dry air) of air at the humidifier outlet.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Experimental Setup Description
The pilot scale Solar-Assisted Humidification Dehumidification Desalination (SA-
HDH) system has been designed, developed, and installed on the terrace of the
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
SVNIT Surat, India. The experiments with SA-HDH systems were conducted in
February, March, and April 2024 under climatic conditions of Surat, India (Lattitude-
21.1663° N, Longitude-72.7833°E), India. The study employed a system comprising an
evacuated tube solar air heater, packed bed humidifier, fin-tube-type dehumidifier,
and water tank. The system operates in two distinct open and closed configurations.
Figure 1 shows a schematic of the SA-HDH water desalination system.

7
 Figure 1: Schematic representation of the SA-HDH system

2.1.1 Solar air heater (SAH)

The single-ended open-evacuated tube collector (SEO-ETC) was used in solar air
heaters, as illustrated in Figure 2. Each evacuated tube utilized in the solar air heater
had a length of 1800 mm, an outer diameter of 58 mm, and an inner diameter of 47mm.
Evacuated tubes are composed of transparent glass with a transmissivity of 0.90. A
total of 50 tubes were employed, which provided a collector area for the solar air
heater collector of 8.19 m2. A 200 W blower was used to circulate air within the system.

Figure 2 (i) Schematic representation of solar air heater (SEO-ETC) (ii)Photograph

of (SEO-ETC)

8
2.1.2 Humidifier
The humidifier in the SA-HDH system was a packed bed type with a square cross-
sectional area measuring 0.6×0.6m and a height of 1.82m. The humidifier consists of a
2 mm thick acrylic sheet with an arrangement to secure the packing material. The
humidifier comprises three zones: the spray, packing, and rain zones, as depicted in
Figure 3. In spray zone, saline water was uniformly sprayed across the entire cross-
sectional area of the humidifier using nozzles. In this study, four full-cone spray
nozzles made of SS303 were used to spray saline water. In packing zone, the packing
material comprised honeycomb-structured corrugated cellulose pads with a
corrugated angle of 45° and a specific area of 226 m2/m3 was considered. In the third
zone, i.e., the rain zone, the carrier air initially interacts with saline water and travels
upward in a counter-current direction. The highly concentrated brine was discharged
from the bottom of the humidifier to the brine tank. An 80 W pump was used to feed
saline water to the nozzles for spraying. Figure 4 shows the nozzle arrangement,
nozzle type, spray pattern view, and packing material used in this study.

Figure 3 Schematic representation of humidifier

9
Figure 4 (a) nozzles arrangement (b) spray pattern (c) nozzles (d) packing material

2.1.3 Dehumidifier
The four sets of finned tube heat exchangers (FTHE) were used to fabricate the
dehumidifier. The heat exchanger tubes were composed of copper material with an
outside diameter of 9.52 mm. The heat exchanger fins are made of aluminum for
maximum heat transfer and economic reasons. An air-to-water FTHE was used within
the dehumidifier, each FTHE receiving a cold-water supply. A self-priming pump
with a capacity of 80 W was employed to circulate cooling water. The cooling water
flowed through the FTHE tubes, whereas hot and humid air passed over the tubes
and fins. This process leads to the cooling and condensation of moist air when it comes
into contact with heat exchanger surfaces. Figure 5 depicts a schematic of the
dehumidifier. Thermal insulation (Grade-1260C) was used to insulate the humidifier
and dehumidifier to minimize heat loss.

Figure 5 Schematic diagram of dehumidifier

10
2.2 Process description
Figure 1 depicts the schematic representation of SA-HDH systems. The blower was
turned on to facilitate the air circulation within the system. The flow control valves
were used to regulate the airflow rate. Initially, air enters the solar air heater at point
‘1a’, which undergoes a sensible heating process and increases its dry bulb
temperature. This increase in temperature increases its moisture-holding capacity.
The heated air was entered into the humidifier at point ‘2a’ using an aluminum duct.
Simultaneously, the saline water at point ‘1w’ sprayed over the packing material.
When the air comes into contact with saline water, it becomes humidified, thus
increasing the humidity ratio (moisture content). In the packing zone, heat and mass
take place between the air and saline water. As a result, the humidifier outlet air
temperature was slightly reduced to near water temperature while its moisture
content increased. The humidifier outlet at point ‘3a’, air reaches a saturation
condition (RH=100%). Then, the humid air enters the dehumidifier, where water
vapor condenses on the surface of the finned tube dehumidifier. The cooling water
was used as a cooling medium for humid air condensation. Due to the difference
between the dew point temperature (DPT) of humid air and cooling water
temperature, the vapor condenses into freshwater. For effective condensation, the
cooling water temperature is always maintained below the DPT of humid air. The
freshwater was collected in the measuring beaker. Finally, remaining air was released
into the atmosphere at point ‘4a’ in an open-loop configuration or recirculated to the
solar air heater inlet at point ‘1a’ in a closed-loop configuration.

2.3 Measuring Instruments and Uncertainty Analysis

Various parameters were measured to analyze the system performance, such as air
temperature, saline water temperature, air and water flow rate, electric power
consumption, solar intensity, relative humidity, and freshwater yield.

The PT-100 RTD thermocouple sensors were employed to measure the air and water
temperature at various locations, which were then connected to a 16-channel
ENVADA B6000B6 type data logger for data acquisition. A data logger was connected
to the computer with the help of a communication cable, and data were stored using
eScan 9.0. Testo 405i thermal anemometer was used to measure the air velocity. An in-

11
line type of rotameter was used to measure the saline water and cooling water mass
flow rate. Relative humidity was measured using a HUMITHERM942DHTX humidity
sensor. A measuring beaker was used to measure the freshwater production. A
pyranometer (EKO MS-80S) was used to measure the solar radiation intensity, and
weather data were obtained from the weather station. Details of the instruments used
in this study are listed in Table 1. All instruments were calibrated, and their
uncertainty (U) was calculated using the equation provided by Lawal et al. [22]

U=
Accuracy (1)
3

The uncertainties in SA-HDH system of the present work are calculated using the
following equation,

2 2 2 2
 R   R   R   R 
U R =  U1  +  U 2  +  U 3  + ......  U n  (2)
 x1   x2   x3   xn 
Where, R is given function of independent variables and 'U1', 'U2', 'U3, ……., and
uncertainties associated with the independent variables are represented by 'Un'.

Table 1 The detailed specifications of measuring instruments used for the

experimental tests

Measuring Measured Parameters Range (Unit) Accuracy Standard

Instrument Uncertainty
Thermocouple (PT-100 Temperature - 40 – 250°C ±0.10°C ±0.0577%
RTD)
Humidity Sensor Relative Humidity 0 - 100 % ±3.00 % RH ±1.7321%
(HUMITHERM942DHTX)
Rotameter (In-line type) Mass Flow Measurement 0 - 500 LPH ±2.00 LPH ± 1.1540 LPH

Anemometer (Testo 405i) Air Velocity 0.4 - 30 m/s ±0.01 m/s ± 0.0577 m/s
Pyranometer (EKO MS- Solar Radiation 0 - 4000 W/m2 ±1.00 W/m2 ± 0.5773 W/m2
80S)
Glass beaker Water Quantity 0-2000 ml ±0.05 ml ± 0.0288 ml

Data logger To record the temperature PT100: -40 to + ±0.10°C for ± 0.0577 °C
(ENVADA B6000B6) 250 °C PT100

The maximum uncertainty in the experimental results is estimated to be ±3.61%,

which is below the 10% threshold for thermal systems [23]. Therefore, the conclusions
drawn from these experimental results are considered reliable.

12
3 Performance indices
The performance of the SA-HDH system has been evaluated using energy and exergy
analysis. The impact of mass flow rate ratio (MfR) on freshwater yield has been
evaluated. Also, the system’s humidification rate, economic analysis, and
environmental analysis have been conducted.

3.1 Mass flow rate ratio (MfR)

It is the ratio of the mass flow rate of saline water to the air supplied. The performance
of the system is significantly influenced by the air supplied to the system. It is a
dimensionless quantity.

m sw (3)
MfR=
ma

where, 𝑚̇𝑠𝑤 is saline water mass flow rate and 𝑚̇𝑎 is dry air mass flow rate supplied.

3.2 Humidification rate (HR)

The humidification rate, measured in kg/hr, represents the amount of water vapor
added to dry air per unit of time.
  (4)
mhum = ma (out − in )hum

The humidification rate is a critical parameter because it directly impacts the

humidifier's efficiency.

3.3 Gained Output Ratio (GOR):

The GOR is the ratio of the total latent heat of vaporization of obtained fresh water to
the input energy supplied to the HDH system. It is a dimensionless quantity.
Mathematically, it can be expressed as,

m fw  h fg (5)
GOR =
Qin

The high GOR indicates that less energy is needed to produce a unit of fresh water.
When fossil fuels are used as a heat source, a higher GOR translates to reduced fuel
costs. Conversely, when solar energy is utilized, a higher GOR means a solar collector
area, thereby reducing the system’s initial cost.

13
3.4 Specific freshwater production
The specific freshwater production (kg/m2-day) is the amount of freshwater produced
per day for a given collector area. This indicator is specially used to evaluate the
efficiency of solar-assisted HDH water desalination.

3.5 Energy Analysis

In the energy analysis, factors such as solar air heater area, power consumption, and
latent heat are constant, whereas solar radiation and freshwater yield are variable
factors. The energy efficiency (  en ) is calculated as,

m fw  h fg (6)
en =
[( IT  Ac ) + Wblower + Wpump ]  t

3.6 Exergy Analysis

Irreversibility is the main factor that leads to exergy degradation within the system.
The second law of thermodynamics analyzes the thermal system to identify the losses
within each component. The exergy efficiency depends on ambient and hot air
temperatures, available solar radiation, and freshwater yield. The exergy efficiency of
system is calculated as follows,

.  T  (7)
m fw  h fg   1 − amb 
ex =  Ts 
   4 T   1  T 4   
 
 IT  Ac 1 −    +       + Ex ,WE   t
amb amb

   3 Tsun   3  Tsun    
 

3.7 Environmental analysis

SA-HDH desalination systems can produce fresh water without CO2 emissions.
However, the materials used to fabricate the system produce CO2 emissions, and it is
necessary to assess the embodied energy of various materials used in the development
of system. The average value of CO2 emission is 0.98 kg of CO2 per kWh in the case of
electricity generated from coal. Table 2 shows the list of embodied energy of the
material used to fabricate the SA-HDH system. The life span (TLs) is considered to be
20 years.

Embodied energy  0.98 (8)

( CO2 )emisison per year =
Life span (TLs )

14
Different types of losses, such as domestic appliance losses (20%) and transmission
and distribution losses (40%), are considered for the Indian conditions. Hence, CO2
mitigation is 2.042 kg/kWh.

Now, CO2 emission in kg per year is calculated as,

Embodied energy  2.042 (9)

( CO2 )emisison per year =
Life span (TLs )

The net CO2 emission over the life span of the system in tons,

( CO2 )emisison per year  TLS (10)

( CO2 )totalemisison =
1000
The net CO2 mitigation over the life span of the system in tons is expressed as,

Eout  TLS  2.042 (11)

( CO2 )total mitigation =
1000
Net CO2 mitigation over the life span of the system (in tons of CO2) is estimated as,

(12)
( CO2 )overall mitigation = ( CO2 )total mitigation − ( CO2 )total emitted

Table 2 Embodied energy of different materials utilized to construct the SA-HDH

system

Items Weight Embodied energy Total embodied

(kg) density (kWh/kg) energy (kWh)
Blower 8 52.9 423.2
Evacuated tube solar air heaters 8.19 m2 422.5 /m2 3460.27
Humidifier (Acrylic sheet) 8 27.78 222.24
Finned tube heat exchanger (Air-to- 15 37.4 561
water)
Square iron pipe (for structure) 50 8.89 444.5
Glass wool insulation 3 4.004 12.012
Water pumps (02 pumps) 20 52.9 1058
Paint 2.5 25.11 62.775
Stainless steel tank 50 10.7 535.00
Copper wire used in cable 2 19.61 39.22
Aluminum duct tape for insulation 0.1 55.28 5.528
PVC pipes for connections 2 19.44 38.88
Total Embodied Energy (kWh) 6862.625

15
3.8 Economic Analysis
An economic analysis is essential for determining the feasibility of the system. The
economic analysis involves calculating the cost per liter of freshwater produced.
While assessing the economics of the system, several factors must be considered along
with capital cost. These factors are Sinking Fund Factor (SFF), Annual Salvage cost
(CSV), Annual Maintenance Cost (CAM), and Annual Interest Rate (i). Capital costs
include major components, such as humidifiers, dehumidifiers, water pumps,
blowers, water tanks, solar air heaters, and pipe fittings. Additionally, electricity
consumed by the system components, such as the pump, blower, etc., are considered
electricity prices.

The annual capital cost (CAC) is calculated as,

C AC = Z   (13)

Where "Z” is capital cost of the SA-HDH system (neglecting the cost associated with
the purchase and preparation of the land). The capital cost of the system, as shown in
the Table 3.

The capital recovery factor ( ) is estimated as,

r (r + 1) N (14)
=
(r + 1) N − 1
Where r is the rate of interest assumed to be 12% (considering bank loan), and N is the
system's life expectancy considered 20 years, respectively.
The annual salvage value is taken as one-fifth of the annual capital cost given as,

Csv = Z  0.2 (15)

The sinking fund factor (SFF) and annual salvage cost (CAS) can be estimated as,

SFF =
r (16)
(r + 1) N − 1

C AS = ( SFF )  CSV (17)

The total annual cost (CTA) is estimated as,

CTA = C AC + C AM + C AR − CSV (18)

16
The total running cost (CAR) was calculated based on the system's energy consumption
(kWh) multiplied by the unit price of electricity ($/kWh). Annual maintenance cost is
taken 10% of the first-year cost.

Now, freshwater cost per liter (CL) can be calculated as,

CL =
CTA (19)
Y
Where Y is the total annual freshwater yield obtained using the SA-HDH system.

Table 3 Capital cost of the system

Assets Quantity Unit price ($) Total cost ($)

Single-end open ETC (SEO-ETC) 1 478.88 478.88
Blower 1 23.94 23.94
Packed bed humidifier 1 143.66 143.66
Nozzles 4 11.97 47.88
Air duct 1 23.94 23.94
Finned tube heat exchangers 4 35.91 143.64
Pump 2 23.94 47.88
Miscellaneous (PVC pipes, - 30 30
solutions, control valves)
Total cost (in USD) 939.82
Total Cost (in INR*) Rs. 78,895/-
*1 USD = 83.95 INR (currency conversion on 03/09/2024)

4 Results and discussion

The obtained results of experiments conducted on the SA-HDH system are presented
and discussed in this section. All experiments were conducted under clear-sky
conditions. The mass flow rate ratio (MfR=2, MfR=2.5, and MfR=3.5) was varied by
adjusting the air flow rate, whereas the saline water mass flow rate of 300 kg/h was
maintained constant. The mass flow rate ratios (MfR) were selected based on
theoretical analysis and available blower capacity. The parameters measured included
solar irradiation, carrier air temperature, saline water, cooling water temperature,
relative humidity, air and water mass flow rates, and energy consumption.

17
4.1 Open loop and closed loop comparison in SA-HDH system
The variation in solar radiation intensity for open and closed-loop configurations at
MfR=2.5 during the testing days from 9.00 to 17.00 hrs., as shown in Figure 6. It was
observed that the solar radiation intensity was identical on both days. The average
solar intensities were observed to be 743.02 W/m2 and 730.16 W/m2 in open and
closed loops, respectively. The average solar air heater outlet air temperature was
67.3°C and 70°C for open and closed loops, respectively.

Figure 6 Variation in solar intensity for open and closed loops at an MfR of 2.5

Figure 7 shows the variations in air temperature for open loop and closed loop
configuration at an MfR of 2.5. The solar air heater outlet air (T_SAH_out) and solar
intensity exhibited a similar trend in both cases. The maximum solar air heater outlet
air temperatures reached 77 °C and 80 °C in an open and closed loop configuration,
respectively. In the closed loop, the air outlet temperature from the solar air heater
(T_SAH_out) was higher than open loop configuration. The dehumidifier outlet air
temperature (T_D_out) was found to be higher in a closed loop compared to open
loop. The average dehumidifier outlet air temperature (T_D_out) was 23.21°C and
24.47°C for open and closed loops, respectively. As a result, the humidifier outlet air

18
temperature (T_H_out) is higher, allowing it to hold more water vapor. The mean air
temperature at the humidifier outlet was 34.95°C for the open loop and 38.65°C for
the closed loop. In a humidifier, hot air absorbs moisture from saline water and air
becomes saturated due to heat and mass exchange.

Figure 7 Air temperature variation for open and closed loop at MfR=2.5

Figure 8 shows variation in air humidity ratio (ω) at solar air heater inlet, humidifier,
and dehumidifier outlet at an MfR of 2.5. In the case of closed-loop, humidity ratio at
solar air heater inlet is same as dehumidifier outlet humidity ratio as the air was
recirculated back to solar air heater inlet. The maximum humidity ratio of 0.051
kg/kgda and 0.046 kg/kgda were observed at the humidifier outlet in a closed loop and
open loop, respectively. The condition of air, i.e., DBT and RH entry to the humidifier,
plays a significant role in raising the water vapor content. The average humidity ratios
at the humidifier outlet were 0.038 kg/kgda for the open loop and 0.043 kg/kgda for
the closed loop. This indicates that the water vapor content at the humidifier outlet in
the closed loop was 13.15% higher open loop. The average humidity ratio at the
dehumidifier outlet was 0.019 and 0.21 kg/kgda for an open and closed loop,
respectively. The DBT and humidity ratio at the dehumidifier outlet were found to be

19
higher in the closed loop. This significant difference in air temperature and humidity
ratio resulted in a higher air temperature and humidity ratio at humidifier outlet in
closed loop configuration. Resulting more freshwater produced due to more
condensation of water vapor.

Figure 8 Variation in humidity ratio for open and closed loop at MfR=2.5

In a dehumidifier, to condense the humid air, circulating cooling water at a

temperature of 18-20°C was maintained using a continuous cooling water source
through the tank. The cooling water temperature maintained much below the dew
point temperature of humid air, leading to the effective water vapor condensation in
the dehumidifier.

20
 Figure 9 Variation in humidification rate for an open and closed loop at MfR=2.5

4.2 Variation of humidification rate for an open and closed loop at MfR=2.5
Figure 9 shows the variation in humidification rate for open and closed loops at
MfR=2.5. The humidification rate mainly depends on air flow rate and humidity ratio
difference across humidifiers. If air is at a high DBT and is saturated at the humidifier
exit, it leads to a higher moisture content at humidifier outlet. The MfR and saline
water temperature remained constant in both cases. In closed-loop configuration,
humidification rate was always higher than in the open-loop configuration because of
maximum humidity ratio at humidifier outlet (ω_H_out). The mean humidification
rate was found to be 2.4 kg/hr for open loop and 2.8 kg/hr for closed loop. The
humidification rate in the closed loop was 16.66 % higher than that in the open loop,
indicating that more water vapor is available for condensation at the dehumidifier.

The observations clearly indicated that the system operated in a closed-loop

configuration showed a higher water vapor content at the humidifier outlet compared
to the open-loop configuration, which retained a higher moisture level at the
humidifier exit, leading to improved overall humidification efficiency. Due to higher
vapor content at the humidifier outlet, the freshwater productivity was also increased

21
by 7.56%. It also enhances the overall energy efficiency of the HDH system. It enhances
the humidification process as the air becomes progressively more humid in each cycle
due to the closed-loop configuration.

4.3 Effect of mass flow rate ratio on closed-loop configuration

The previous section suggested that closed-loop performance was better compared to
open-loop configuration. Therefore, a study was conducted on three different mass
flow rate ratios (MfR1=2, MfR1=2.5, and MfR=3) in closed-loop configurations, to
analyze the effects of varying air flow rates on system performance.

Figure 10 Solar intensity variation with time for different MfR values in closed-
loop configurations

Figure 10 shows the variation in solar intensity with time during test days for M fR
values of 2.5,2, and 3 in closed-loop configurations. The maximum solar radiation
observed during the experimental days for MfR values of 2.5, 2, and 3 were 955.91,
1025.81, and 1008.5 W/m2, respectively. The maximum solar radiation was recorded
at 13.00 hours. The average value of solar intensities recorded for MfR values of 2.5, 2,
and 3 were 730.16, 698.35, and 745.36 W/m2, respectively. The radiation data
exhibited a similar trend for the different MfR values and showed comparable average

22
radiation, which can be used to assess the system performance. Slight fluctuation in
solar radiation is due to climatic conditions.

Figure 11 Variation in outlet air temperature at solar air heater, humidifier, and
dehumidifier in a closed loop configuration

Figure 11 depicts the air outlet temperature variation from solar air heater, humidifier,
and dehumidifier at different MfR values in a closed-loop configuration. The
maximum air temperature at solar air heater outlet was recorded at MfR values of 2.5
and 3, while a lower temperature was noted at an MfR of 2. This is because air has a
longer residence time to absorb heat at a lower air flow rate, resulting increased solar
air heater outlet temperature. The humidifier outlet air temperature was observed
similar at all values of MfR. However, the dehumidifier outlet air temperature was
higher for MfR of 2, which had the highest air mass flow rate compared to the other
cases. This indicates that at a higher air mass flow rate through the dehumidifier, heat
is not transfer effectively to the cooling water, leading to improper moisture
condensation.

Figure 12 shows the variation in humidity ratio (kg/kgda) at humidifier and

dehumidifier outlet. Higher the humidity ratio difference across the humidifier and

23
dehumidifier outlet, the condensation process is more effective, resulting in a higher
freshwater yield.

Figure 12 Variation in humidity ratio at humidifier and dehumidifier outlet in

closed-loop configurations

The mean humidity ratio differences at the humidifier and dehumidifier outlets were
0.0237, 0.0182, and 0.0224 kg/kgda for MfR of 2.5, 2, and 3, respectively. It was found
that the difference in the humidity ratio increased with increasing MfR. An increase in
MfR increases humidifier outlet air temperature (T_H_out), and air becomes
saturated. However, if the air mass flow rate exceeds the optimum limit, both
temperature and relative humidity decrease because of reduced interaction time
between air and saline water in the packing section. Consequently, the air does not
become fully saturated and picks up less moisture. Therefore, the system should be
operated at the optimum MfR to achieve higher freshwater yield and system
efficiency.

24
 Figure 13 Variation of humidification rate in closed loop configuration for
different mass flow rate ratios

Variation in humidification rate with time in closed loop configuration for MfR values
of 2.5, 2, and 3 as shown in Figure 13. The analysis showed the highest value of
humidification rate for MfR of 2 because higher air mass flow rate for the lower value
of MfR. The humidification rate depends on the air mass flow rate and difference in
humidity ratio across the humidifier according to Eq. (6). The humidification rate for
all MfR values follows a similar trend of radiation pattern as the highest
humidification rate was observed at 13.00 hours. The humidification rate of 27.36,
30.98, and 23.75 kg/hr for MfR values of 2.5, 2, and 3, respectively. Figure 14 shows
the cumulative humidification rate with time at different MfR values for closed loop
configuration. Figure 14 shows an increasing trend, in which MfR of 2 shows a higher
humidification rate due to a higher mass flow rate as the humidification rate is directly
proportional to the air mass flow rate flowing through the humidifier and the
difference of humidity ratio (kg/kgda) across the humidifier. A higher mass flow rate
through the dehumidifier reduces the residence time and results in lower freshwater
yield due to less moisture condensation.

25
 Figure 14 Cumulative humidification rate with time at different MfR for closed
loop configuration

4.4 Effect of mass flow rate ratio on freshwater yield

The freshwater yield of the SA-HDH system depends on the difference in humidity
ratio across the dehumidifier and air mass flow rate. The humidity ratio at a
dehumidifier depends on the humidifier's efficiency, humidification process, air and
water temperature, and solar intensity. Figure 15 shows the hourly freshwater yield
variation with time from the SA-HDH system for different MfR values. The daily
freshwater yield obtained from the system was 21.3 and 25.61 kg/day for open and
closed loops at an MfR value of 2.5. The freshwater yield from a closed system was
20.23% higher than the open loop system. This is because in a closed-loop system, the
humidity ratio was higher at the solar air heater inlet than in an open-loop system. So,
the system should be operated in a closed-loop configuration for higher daily
freshwater yield.

26
 Figure 15 Freshwater yield variation with time at different MfR

Further, the daily freshwater yield for the current system for M fR values of 2 and 3
were 24.7 and 20.2 kg/day, respectively. In a closed-loop system, the maximum
freshwater yield was obtained at an MfR of 2.5. The humidification rate was maximum
for an MfR of 2, but the maximum freshwater yield was obtained at an MfR of 2.5 due
to more efficient dehumidification in the dehumidifier. This is because, at the
optimum mass flow rate ratio (MfR=2.5), the freshwater yield was higher due to the
efficient humidification and condensation process. The optimum value of MfR ensures
that the humidifier and dehumidifier operate at a higher efficiency. So, the SA-HDH
desalination system should be operated at the optimum value of M fR for more
freshwater yield. Conversely, suboptimal MfR values can lead to inefficient processes
and lower freshwater output. Figure 16 shows the cumulative freshwater yield for
different mass flow rate ratio values. The data shows a linearly increasing trend for all
MfR values. However, the freshwater yields were lower at an MfR of 2.5 in the open
loop and at an MfR of 3 in the closed loop, causing these lines to fall below the trends
observed for other MfR values.

27
 Figure 16 Cumulative freshwater yield with time at different MfR

4.5 Effect of mass flow rate ratio of energy and exergy efficiency
The system energy and exergy efficiency depend on the freshwater yield and available
solar radiation. Figure 17 shows the energy efficiency for different mass flow rate
ratios in open and closed loop configurations.

Figure 17 Variation of hourly energy efficiency for different MfR in open and
closed loop configurations
28
The average energy efficiency for open and closed loop is 21.89% and 26.41%,
respectively, at an MfR of 2.5. The average energy efficiency for the closed loop is
higher than that of the open loop due to more daily freshwater yield, as solar intensity
was similar for both days. Thus, a closed-loop system enhances the energy efficiency
of the system due to more freshwater yield generation. The energy efficiency for MfR
values of 2 and 3 was found to be 25.24% and 20.63%, respectively. The energy
efficiency of the SA-HDH system was found to be higher at an MfR of 2.5 in the closed-
loop system. At optimum MfR, the system operates more efficiently as the energy
input is effectively utilized for heating and humidifying the air, resulting in higher
freshwater yields per unit of energy consumed. The exergy efficiency for closed loops
for different MfR values as shown in Figure 18. The exergy efficiency for an MfR of 2.5
in an open loop was lower due to less freshwater yield obtained and a lower air mass
flow rate in this configuration. Whereas exergy efficiency was maximum for an MfR
of 2 in a closed loop configuration due to the higher mass flow rate and a good amount
of freshwater yield obtained from the system. Figure 18 shows that the exergy
efficiency for a closed loop was higher than the open loop system due to improved
system performance in terms of freshwater yield and air mass flow rate. The average
exergy efficiencies obtained were 3.09% for MfR values of 2.5 in the open loop and
3.96, 4.25, and 3.06% for MfR values of 2.5, 2, and 3 in the closed loop, respectively.
The exergy efficiency for MfR values of 2.5 and 2 shows a similar trend in a closed
loop, indicating that the system was more effective and more productive in converting
solar energy into freshwater compared with others. It highlights the capability of the
system to maximize energy utilization, reduce losses, and obtain higher freshwater
yield, all of which contribute to improved sustainability, economic feasibility, and
environmental performance.

29
 Figure 18 Variation of hourly exergy efficiency for different MfR in open and
closed loop configurations

4.6 Environmental and Economic Analysis

The environmental study was carried out to evaluate the CO2 mitigation potential of
the system. Table 4 presents the total CO2 mitigation achieved by the system under
various cases.

Table 4 Comparison of the freshwater yield, total CO2 mitigation, and cost of
freshwater at different MfR values for open and closed loop configuration

MfR Freshwater Freshwater System Total CO2 Cost of freshwater

(-) yield yield configuration mitigation
(kg/day) (kg/m2 day) (tons) $/kg Rs. /kg
2.5 21.3 2.60 Open loop 149.6 0.025 2.09
2.5 25.6 3.12 Closed loop 182.6 0.018 1.51
2 24.7 3.01 Closed loop 175.7 0.019 1.59
3 20.2 2.46 Closed Loop 141.1 0.026 2.18

The total embodied energy used for the fabrication of the system is the same for all
considered cases, but the yearly energy output varies due to different freshwater
yields for different cases. For an MfR of 2.5, the open-loop system shows less overall

30
CO2 mitigation due to lower freshwater yield, while the closed-loop shows the highest
CO2 mitigation owing to its higher freshwater yield. Freshwater yield increases with
an increasing air mass flow rate until it reaches its optimum limit; after the optimum
limit, freshwater yield decreases. Consequently, for MfR other than the optimal value,
the CO2 mitigation was lower due to reduced freshwater production than the
optimum MfR. Further, an economic analysis was done to check the economic viability
of the system. Table 4 depicts the Freshwater yield, cost, and toral CO2 mitigation for
considered cases in this study. The freshwater cost for MfR values 2.5 and 2 in a closed
loop was minimal due to higher freshwater yield than the others. The minimum cost
of the freshwater found at an MfR of 2.5 in a closed loop system was 0.018 $/kg. This
is due to the maximum freshwater yield obtained at the optimum MfR.

Further, results obtained from the current SA-HDH system are compared with
comparable existing desalination systems, as mentioned in Table 5. The freshwater
production can be increased by increasing the saline water temperature. The specific
water production can be increased in a dual heating (both air and water) system. The
compared results show a higher freshwater yield with higher exergy efficiency. The
SEO-ETC is utilized for air heating, which improves the humidification rate and
subsequently increases the freshwater yield. Maximum freshwater yield increases
energy efficiency, overall CO2 mitigation, and lower freshwater cost per liter.

Table 5 Comparison of current research findings with existing research studies

Heat Type of Energy Exergy Freshwater Cost References

source system efficiency efficiency yield ($/kg)
(%) (%) (kg/m2/day)
Solar Air 4-Stage -- -- 4.0 0.032 [24]
Heater HDH
System
ETC- Solar SAH- -- -- 0.6 -- [25]
Air Heater HDH
FPC (Air Solar 31.54 1.87 3.19 0.0981 [26]
and Water thermal -
heating) HDH
SEO-ETC SA-HDH 26.41 3.09 3.12 0.018 Present
Solar Air study
Heater

31
5 Conclusions
The RO rejects water from the textile industry in landlocked regions, which can be
treated using the SA-HDH system. This study analyzes the SA-HDH desalination
system at different MfR by varying air mass flow rates. Two configurations (open and
closed loops) were investigated based on humidification rate, energy and exergy
efficiency, freshwater yield, economic (cost of freshwater per liter), and environmental
(CO2 mitigation) analysis. The results of the current work are presented as follows:

• The freshwater yield of 25.6 kg/day was obtained at an MfR 2.5 in closed-loop
configurations.
• The specific freshwater production 3.12 kg/m2-day was obtained for a given
solar collector area.
• An overall energy efficiency of 26.41% was obtained at an optimum MfR of 2.5
in closed-loop. For higher MfR values, the energy efficiency is lower due to the
reduced freshwater yield obtained from the system.
• The average exergy efficiencies obtained are 3.09% for MfR values of 2.5 in the
open loop and 3.96, 4.25, and 3.06 for MfR values of 2.5, 2, and 3 in the closed
loop, respectively.
• The SA-HDH system performs better when operated in a closed loop at an
optimum MfR than in an open loop configuration.
• The total CO2 mitigation from the system at MfR of 2.5 in a closed loop is 182.6
tons, considering the 20-year lifespan of the system. This higher mitigation is
due to the higher freshwater yield produced by the compared to the open loop
and other MfR values.
• The minimum cost of freshwater of 0.018 $/kg (Rs. 1.50/kg) was obtained at
an MfR of 2.5 in closed-loop configurations, attributed to the higher freshwater
yield.
• Thus, a Solar-Assisted Humidification Dehumidification System (SA-HDH) is
a promising option for high TDS RO Reject water treatment from textile
industry.

32
Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the Department of
Science and Technology, SERB, Government of India for funding this work through
project No. CRG/2022/006460.

References

[1] R. Santosh, T. Arunkumar, R. Velraj, and G. Kumaresan, “Technological

advancements in solar energy driven humidification-dehumidification
desalination systems - A review,” J Clean Prod, vol. 207, pp. 826–845, Jan. 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.247.
[2] G. P. Narayan, M. H. Sharqawy, E. K. Summers, J. H. Lienhard, S. M. Zubair,
and M. A. Antar, “The potential of solar-driven humidification–
dehumidification desalination for small-scale decentralized water production,”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1187–1201, May 2010,
doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.014.
[3] F. Alnaimat, M. Ziauddin, and B. Mathew, “A review of recent advances in
humidification and dehumidification desalination technologies using solar
energy,” Desalination, vol. 499, p. 114860, Feb. 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.desal.2020.114860.
[4] S. Al-Hallaj, S. Parekh, M. M. Farid, and J. R. Selman, “Solar desalination with
humidification–dehumidification cycle: Review of economics,” Desalination,
vol. 195, no. 1–3, pp. 169–186, Aug. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.09.033.
[5] R. Bahoosh, A. Nazari, M. Changizian, and M. Moravej, “Fabrication of Solar
Desalination System and Experimental Investigation of its Performance of it,
Located in Ahvaz City,” Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer Research, vol. 9, no. 2,
pp. 255–268, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.22075/jhmtr.2023.23508.1344.
[6] F. Nematollahi, A. Rahimi, and T. T. Gheinani, “Experimental and theoretical
energy and exergy analysis for a solar desalination system,” Desalination, vol.
317, pp. 23–31, May 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2013.02.021.
[7] E. K. Summers, M. A. Antar, and J. H. Lienhard, “Design and optimization of
an air heating solar collector with integrated phase change material energy
storage for use in humidification–dehumidification desalination,” Solar Energy,
vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 3417–3429, Nov. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2012.07.017.
[8] X. Li, G. Yuan, Z. Wang, H. Li, and Z. Xu, “Experimental study on a
humidification and dehumidification desalination system of solar air heater
with evacuated tubes,” Desalination, vol. 351, pp. 1–8, Oct. 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.desal.2014.07.008.

33
[9] P. Behnam and M. B. Shafii, “Examination of a solar desalination system
equipped with an air bubble column humidifier, evacuated tube collectors and
thermosyphon heat pipes,” Desalination, vol. 397, pp. 30–37, Nov. 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.desal.2016.06.016.
[10] N. A. S. Elminshawy, F. R. Siddiqui, and M. F. Addas, “Experimental and
analytical study on productivity augmentation of a novel solar humidification–
dehumidification (HDH) system,” Desalination, vol. 365, pp. 36–45, Jun. 2015,
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2015.02.019.
[11] M. Abedi, X. Tan, P. Saha, J. F. Klausner, and A. Bénard, “Design of a solar air
heater for a direct-contact packed-bed humidification–dehumidification
desalination system,” Appl Therm Eng, vol. 244, p. 122700, May 2024, doi:
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2024.122700.
[12] H. Ben Bacha, “Thermodynamic comparison of the operation of the HDH
system with water heating or air heating in closed water circulation and semi-
open-air circulation,” International Journal of Thermofluids, p. 100535, Dec. 2023,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijft.2023.100535.
[13] M. A. Antar and M. H. Sharqawy, “Experimental investigations on the
performance of an air heated humidification–dehumidification desalination
system,” Desalination Water Treat, vol. 51, no. 4–6, pp. 837–843, Jan. 2013, doi:
10.1080/19443994.2012.714598.
[14] K. Srithar and T. Rajaseenivasan, “Performance analysis on a solar bubble
column humidification dehumidification desalination system,” Process Safety
and Environmental Protection, vol. 105, pp. 41–50, Jan. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.psep.2016.10.002.
[15] F. A. Al-Sulaiman, M. I. Zubair, M. Atif, P. Gandhidasan, S. A. Al-Dini, and M.
A. Antar, “Humidification dehumidification desalination system using
parabolic trough solar air collector,” Appl Therm Eng, vol. 75, pp. 809–816, Jan.
2015, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.10.072.
[16] A. M. I. Mohamed and N. A. El-Minshawy, “Theoretical investigation of solar
humidification–dehumidification desalination system using parabolic trough
concentrators,” Energy Convers Manag, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 3112–3119, Sep. 2011,
doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2011.04.026.
[17] D. U. Lawal, S. A. Jawad, and M. A. Antar, “Experimental and theoretical study
on a heat pump driven open-air humidification dehumidification desalination
system,” Energy, vol. 207, p. 118252, Sep. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2020.118252.
[18] D. Lawal, M. Antar, A. Khalifa, S. Zubair, and F. Al-Sulaiman, “Humidification-
dehumidification desalination system operated by a heat pump,” Energy
Convers Manag, vol. 161, pp. 128–140, Apr. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2018.01.067.
[19] E. M. S. El-Said, M. A. Dahab, M. A. Omara, and G. B. Abdelaziz,
“Humidification-dehumidification solar desalination system using porous

34
 activated carbon tubes as a humidifier,” Renewable Energy, vol. 187, pp. 657–670,
Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.01.023.
[20] A. E. Kabeel, M. H. Hamed, Z. M. Omara, and S. W. Sharshir, “Experimental
study of a humidification-dehumidification solar technique by natural and
forced air circulation,” Energy, vol. 68, pp. 218–228, Apr. 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.094.
[21] M. H. Hamed, A. E. Kabeel, Z. M. Omara, and S. W. Sharshir, “Mathematical
and experimental investigation of a solar humidification–dehumidification
desalination unit,” Desalination, vol. 358, pp. 9–17, Feb. 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.005.
[22] D. U. Lawal, S. A. Jawad, and M. A. Antar, “Experimental and theoretical study
on a heat pump driven open-air humidification dehumidification desalination
system,” Energy, vol. 207, p. 118252, Sep. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2020.118252.
[23] P. M. Patel, V. P. Rathod, and V. K. Patel, “Development and enhancement in
drying performance of a novel portable greenhouse solar dryer,” J Stored Prod
Res, vol. 105, p. 102228, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2023.102228.
[24] I. Houcine, M. BenAmara, A. Guizani, and M. Maâlej, “Pilot plant testing of a
new solar desalination process by a multiple-effect-humidification technique,”
Desalination, vol. 196, no. 1–3, pp. 105–124, Sep. 2006, doi:
10.1016/j.desal.2005.11.022.
[25] M. A. Antar and M. H. Sharqawy, “Experimental investigations on the
performance of an air heated humidification–dehumidification desalination
system,” Desalination Water Treat, vol. 51, no. 4–6, pp. 837–843, Jan. 2013, doi:
10.1080/19443994.2012.714598.
[26] E. Deniz and S. Çınar, “Energy, exergy, economic and environmental (4E)
analysis of a solar desalination system with humidification-dehumidification,”
Energy Convers Manag, vol. 126, pp. 12–19, Oct. 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.064.

35