the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 14 Jan 2022
Performance analysis of a basin-type solar still during harmattan
Abstract. This study investigates the variational effect of climate factors on the productivity of a basin-type solar still during the harmattan season under the tropical savanna climate. The study was extended to examine the influences of selected climatic, operational, and design (COD) parameters on productivity. Additionally, the efficiency of solar still in removing water impurities during harmattan was also investigated. Explorative data and statistical analysis, and laboratory testing methods were used for these investigations. Results show that seasonal effects of harmattan can either increase or lower productivity. The effect of wind speed on productivity was not clearly defined during the harmattan season. Although high irradiation is essential for increased productivity, its effect is modified by other factors. Water temperature is the most significant to productivity amongst selected factors studied via the design of experiment (DOE). Moreover, the effect of harmattan on the water quality produced was not established. The main contribution of this work is the insights generated for both qualitative and quantitative reliability performance of a basin-type solar still under prevailing climate conditions.
- Preprint
(1032 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on dwes-2021-19', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 May 2022
Performance analysis of a basin-type solar still during harmattan
The paper is about the performance of a solar still during Harmattan in Nigeria, evaluating the effect of various conditions. The topic is of importance, since decentralised treatment can contribute to the improvement of safe water supply in rural communities. However, the present study is little novel and does not clearly link the characteristics of the Harmattan season to the (prediction of) the performance of the solar still, also related to operational variables.
General comments:
- Language should be checked by a native speaking person
- Redundant and irrelevant information should be avoided
- Introduction starts too general
- Figures 3 and 4 should be combined, and only one example should be given (now all look the same)
- Figures 5,6 and 7 should be combined.
Specific comments:
- Line 6, a “study” does NOT “investigate”
- Line 7-8, delete sentence
- Line 12, “modified” is “influenced”
- Line 14-15, explain which insights are gained
- Line 17-21, delete sentences
- Line 22, delete sentence
- Line 23, “significantly low long-term cost” doubtful if that is really true..
- Line 33, “a passive still” does not “occur”
- Line 35-36, delete sentence
- Line 44-45, delete sentence
- Line 47-48, delete sentence
- Line 49, ambient temperature, solar radiation and wind velocity are already “weather conditions”
- Line 49, “Often investigated operating factors ..”
- Line 67-68, delete sentence
- Line 68-69, rephrase sentence. Not clear what is meant..
- Line 77, not clear what is meant by “.. how selected COD parameters may affect productivity and purification efficacy.” In addition “COD” is not properly introduced.. (chemical oxygen demand? And why this is relevant for a solar still?)
- Use past tenses for own work, e.g. Lines 87, 93, 207 “is” = “was”, Line 182 “reaches” = “reached”, Lines 186 and 186 “range” = “ranged”.
- Line 126, why these variables were chosen? Temperature and salinity are “disturbance” parameters and not “operating” parameters.. Better is to evaluate what the effect of “operation” is on varying conditions..
- Line 129, delete sentence
- Line 136-137, not clear what is the rational behind the “fast” and “slow” variation
- Line 141-142, indicate the make and type of equipment that is used
- Line 142-146, delete sentences
- Line 162, discuss in the context of other studies
- Line 243-246, delete sentences
- Line 253, explain figure 8a better and introduce x1, x2, x3..
- Line 255-256, the effect depends on the range that was chosen, so not a fair comparison..
- Line 257, delete sentence
- Line 258-260, delete sentence from “in contrast” onwards..
- Line 269, delete sentence
- Line 272-285, delete entire section (not relevant)
- Line 288, discuss the reason for pH reduction.
- Line 288-289, delete sentence
- Line 299-301, delete sentences
- Line 313-317, delete sentences
- Line 322-324, delete sentence
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2021-19-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Omololu Ogunseye, 18 May 2022
Reviewer's Comment 01: The paper is about the performance of a solar still during Harmattan in Nigeria, evaluating the effect of various conditions. The topic is of importance since decentralized treatment can contribute to the improvement of safe water supply in rural communities. However, the present study is little novel and does not clearly link the characteristics of the Harmattan season to the (prediction of) the performance of the solar still, also related to operational variables.
Authors Response 01: The reviewer’s observations have been implemented based on general and specific comments. Please refer to the general and specific sections of reviewer’s comments for authors’ responses. Other relevant information and/or formatting has been added to improve the quality of the paper.
Reviewer's Comment 02: Language should be checked by a native speaking person.
Authors Response 02: Comments addressed as suggested.
Reviewer's Comment 03: Redundant and irrelevant information should be avoided.
Authors Response 03: Comments addressed based on reviewer’s suggestion.
Reviewer's Comment 04: Introduction starts too general
Authors Response 04: The introduction has been modified to reflect the reviewer’s suggestions. See specific comment 5.
Reviewer's Comment 05: Figures 3 and 4 should be combined, and only one example should be given (now all look the same)
Authors Response 05: Figure 3 and 4 cannot be combined even though they fit the same time scale, the parameters displayed on the charts are different. Figure 3 shows the variation of solar irradiation and productivity with daytime while Figure 4 shows variation of temperatures and productivity with daytime. Even though the figures look similar, they are not typical. In our opinion, showing only one example may be misleading.
Reviewer's Comment 06: Figures 5,6 and 7 should be combined
Authors Response 06: This comment has been addressed, Figures 5, 6 and 7 are now combined.
Reviewer's Comment 07: Line 6, a “study” does NOT “investigate”
Authors Response 07: The word “investigates” has been replaced with a more appropriate word “evaluates” as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 08: Line 7-8, delete sentence
Authors Response 08: Line 7-8 was deleted as suggested by reviewer, but it is our opinion to add part of this sentence to Line 5 to reflect the scope of our work.
Reviewer's Comment 09: Line 12, “modified” is “influenced”
Authors Response 09: Correction implemented based on reviewer’s comment.
Reviewer's Comment 10: Line 14-15, explain which insights are gained
Authors Response 10: The insights gained have been summarized in Line 9 to 13 prior to the sentence about insights.
Reviewer's Comment 11: Line 17-21, delete sentences
Authors Response 11: Line 17-21 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 12: Line 22, delete sentence
Authors Response 12: Line 22 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 13: Line 23, “significantly low long-term cost” doubtful if that is really true..
Authors Response 13: Word “significant” replaced with “projected” and relevant citation added.
Reviewer's Comment 14: Line 33, “a passive still” does not “occur”
Authors Response 14: Sentence rephrased for clarity based on reviewer’s comment.
Reviewer's Comment 15: Line 35-36, delete sentence
Authors Response 15: Line 35-36 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 16: Line 44-45, delete sentence
Authors Response 16: Line 44-45 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 17: Line 47-48, delete sentence
Authors Response 17: Line 47-48 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 18: Line 49, ambient temperature, solar radiation and wind velocity are already “weather conditions”
Authors Response 18: Editorial error, this has been corrected by the authors’
Reviewer's Comment 19: Line 49, “Often investigated operating factors ..”
Authors Response 19: Correction implemented based on reviewer’s comment
Reviewer's Comment 20: Line 67-68, delete sentence
Authors Response 20: Line 67-68 deleted as recommended by reviewer
Reviewer's Comment 21: Line 68-69, rephrase sentence. Not clear what is meant..
Authors Response 21: Line 68-69 deleted after careful consideration by authors’
Reviewer’s Comment 22: Line 77, not clear what is meant by “.. how selected COD parameters may affect productivity and purification efficacy.” In addition, “COD” is not properly introduced..(chemical oxygen demand? And why this is relevant for a solar still?
Authors Response 22: COD is an acronym coined for Climatic, Operation, and Design. This was first mentioned in Line 47-48 which has now been deleted based on reviewer’s comment. This is not related to Chemical Oxygen Demand as perceived by the reviewer. This sentence has been rephrased for clarity
Reviewer's Comment 23: Use past tenses for own work, e.g., Lines 87, 93, 207 “is” = “was”, Line 182 “reaches” = “reached”, Lines 186 and 186 “range” = “ranged”
Authors Response 23: Correction implemented based on reviewer’s comment
Reviewer's Comment 24: Line 126, why these variables were chosen? Temperature and salinity are “disturbance” parameters and not “operating” parameters.. Better is to evaluate what the effect of “operation” is on varying conditions..
Authors Response 24: These variables were selected because of their possible effect on productivity based on literature review as indicated in Line 46 and 47. The authors agree with the reviewer on these variables as disturbance parameters and reviewer’s comment implemented.
Reviewer's Comment 25: Line 129, delete sentence
Authors Response 25: Line 129 deleted as recommended by reviewer
Reviewer's Comment 26: Line 136-137, not clear what is the rational behind the “fast” and “slow” variation
Authors Response 26: Refer to Table 3. The variation is according to the structure of the design of experiment i.e., 23 factorial design.
Reviewer's Comment 27: Line 141-142, indicate the make and type of equipment that is used
Authors Response 27: The make and type of equipment used are stated in Table 2 and as referenced in Line 143.
Reviewer's Comment 28: Line 142-146, delete sentences
Authors Response 28: Line 142-146 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 29: Line 162, discuss in the context of other studies
Authors Response 29: The authors haven’t identified other studies where the quantitative technique was used to verify the difference in productivity of two solar stills fabricated using the same materials and operated simultaneously under similar conditions. The authors used this technique for fabrication assurance.
Reviewer's Comment 30: Line 253, explain figure 8a better and introduce x1, x2, x3..
Authors Response 30: Figure 8a reformatted with additional information and the variables X1, X2, X3 properly introduced as suggested by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 31: Line 255-256, the effect depends on the range that was chosen, so not a fair comparison..
Authors Response 31: The range that was chosen by the authors reflect the likely operating levels as indicated in line 127 since it is impossible to evaluate all the possible points in the range. The author’s intent was to evaluate the productivity as selected factors changed from one level to another, not necessarily comparing. This is shown Figure 8b. Increasing the range of the water depth for instance is unlikely to increase productivity.
Reviewer's Comment 32: Line 257, delete sentence
Authors Response 32: Line 257 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 33: Line 258-260, delete sentence from “in contrast” onwards..
Authors Response 33: Line 258-260 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 34: Line 269, delete sentence
Authors Response 34: Line 269 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 35: Line 272-285, delete entire section (not relevant)
Authors Response 35: Line 272-285 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 36: Line 288, discuss the reason for pH reduction
Authors Response 36: Discussion on the possible reason for pH reduction has been added as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 37: Line 288-289, delete sentence
Authors Response 37: Line 288-289 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 38: Line 299-301, delete sentences
Authors Response 38: Line 299-301 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 39: Line 313-317, delete sentences
Authors Response 39: Line 313-317 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 40: Line 322-324, delete sentence
Authors Response 40: Line 322-324 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2021-19-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on dwes-2021-19', Bas Heijman, 15 May 2022
The solar stills in these experiments show a very low productivity (5 times lower or more) compared to conventional solar stills in literature. The problem here is that the authors fail to explain why this prodcutivity is so low.
The solar stills in these experiments show a high TDS in the destilate (about 2x the concentration in literature). The authors fail to explain the bad distilate quality.
Too many parameters are changing in the same experiment to draw any scientific conclusion. To give an example: The correlation between rainfall and prodcutivity is investigated. But during rainfall it is also probably cloudy and the irridiation is much lower. Both glass temperature as well as water temperature are influenced by the rainfall.
It is not clear why the authors selected certain parameters to evaluate. So why for instance correlate relative humidity of the air with the productivity in the solar still? What is the logic behind this? In my opinion the humidity of the serounding air is not influencing the evaporation/condensation proces in the solar stills.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2021-19-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Omololu Ogunseye, 22 Jun 2022
Reviewer's Comment 01: The solar stills in these experiments show a very low productivity (5 times lower or more) compared to conventional solar stills in literature. The problem here is that the authors fail to explain why this productivity is so low.
Authors Response 01: Reviewers’ comment has been addressed and some explanations for low productivity was added to the paper.
Reviewer's Comment 02: The solar stills in these experiments show a high TDS in the distillate (about 2x the concentration in literature). The authors fail to explain the bad distillate quality.
Authors Response 02: Explanations on the reason for high DS has been added as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 03: Too many parameters are changing in the same experiment to draw any scientific conclusion. To give an example: The correlation between rainfall and productivity is investigated. But during rainfall it is also probably cloudy, and the irradiation is much lower. Both glass temperature as well as water temperature are influenced by the rainfall.
Authors Response 03: The authors would like to clarify that the correlation matrix generated using the collected data provided some insights to the existing relationship between the variables without implying cause and effect. Having that preliminary understanding as indicated in line 164 to 171, the authors further explored the data to draw some conclusions. We acknowledge the interrelatedness of the mentioned variables; however, the correlation analysis was mainly to identify pattern and was the first step of the analysis.
Reviewer's Comment 04: It is not clear why the authors selected certain parameters to evaluate. So why for instance correlate relative humidity of the air with the productivity in the solar still? What is the logic behind this? In my opinion the humidity of the surrounding air is not influencing the evaporation/condensation process in the solar stills.
Authors Response 04: The parameters selected was based on literature reviews and preliminary data collected during the experiment. The authors agree with reviewer’s observation on the unlikely influence of relative humidity on productivity which seems to be counter-intuitive. However, our data revealed some correlation. The data was analyzed further to identify trend and to help draw some scientific conclusions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2021-19-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Omololu Ogunseye, 22 Jun 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on dwes-2021-19', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 May 2022
Performance analysis of a basin-type solar still during harmattan
The paper is about the performance of a solar still during Harmattan in Nigeria, evaluating the effect of various conditions. The topic is of importance, since decentralised treatment can contribute to the improvement of safe water supply in rural communities. However, the present study is little novel and does not clearly link the characteristics of the Harmattan season to the (prediction of) the performance of the solar still, also related to operational variables.
General comments:
- Language should be checked by a native speaking person
- Redundant and irrelevant information should be avoided
- Introduction starts too general
- Figures 3 and 4 should be combined, and only one example should be given (now all look the same)
- Figures 5,6 and 7 should be combined.
Specific comments:
- Line 6, a “study” does NOT “investigate”
- Line 7-8, delete sentence
- Line 12, “modified” is “influenced”
- Line 14-15, explain which insights are gained
- Line 17-21, delete sentences
- Line 22, delete sentence
- Line 23, “significantly low long-term cost” doubtful if that is really true..
- Line 33, “a passive still” does not “occur”
- Line 35-36, delete sentence
- Line 44-45, delete sentence
- Line 47-48, delete sentence
- Line 49, ambient temperature, solar radiation and wind velocity are already “weather conditions”
- Line 49, “Often investigated operating factors ..”
- Line 67-68, delete sentence
- Line 68-69, rephrase sentence. Not clear what is meant..
- Line 77, not clear what is meant by “.. how selected COD parameters may affect productivity and purification efficacy.” In addition “COD” is not properly introduced.. (chemical oxygen demand? And why this is relevant for a solar still?)
- Use past tenses for own work, e.g. Lines 87, 93, 207 “is” = “was”, Line 182 “reaches” = “reached”, Lines 186 and 186 “range” = “ranged”.
- Line 126, why these variables were chosen? Temperature and salinity are “disturbance” parameters and not “operating” parameters.. Better is to evaluate what the effect of “operation” is on varying conditions..
- Line 129, delete sentence
- Line 136-137, not clear what is the rational behind the “fast” and “slow” variation
- Line 141-142, indicate the make and type of equipment that is used
- Line 142-146, delete sentences
- Line 162, discuss in the context of other studies
- Line 243-246, delete sentences
- Line 253, explain figure 8a better and introduce x1, x2, x3..
- Line 255-256, the effect depends on the range that was chosen, so not a fair comparison..
- Line 257, delete sentence
- Line 258-260, delete sentence from “in contrast” onwards..
- Line 269, delete sentence
- Line 272-285, delete entire section (not relevant)
- Line 288, discuss the reason for pH reduction.
- Line 288-289, delete sentence
- Line 299-301, delete sentences
- Line 313-317, delete sentences
- Line 322-324, delete sentence
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2021-19-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Omololu Ogunseye, 18 May 2022
Reviewer's Comment 01: The paper is about the performance of a solar still during Harmattan in Nigeria, evaluating the effect of various conditions. The topic is of importance since decentralized treatment can contribute to the improvement of safe water supply in rural communities. However, the present study is little novel and does not clearly link the characteristics of the Harmattan season to the (prediction of) the performance of the solar still, also related to operational variables.
Authors Response 01: The reviewer’s observations have been implemented based on general and specific comments. Please refer to the general and specific sections of reviewer’s comments for authors’ responses. Other relevant information and/or formatting has been added to improve the quality of the paper.
Reviewer's Comment 02: Language should be checked by a native speaking person.
Authors Response 02: Comments addressed as suggested.
Reviewer's Comment 03: Redundant and irrelevant information should be avoided.
Authors Response 03: Comments addressed based on reviewer’s suggestion.
Reviewer's Comment 04: Introduction starts too general
Authors Response 04: The introduction has been modified to reflect the reviewer’s suggestions. See specific comment 5.
Reviewer's Comment 05: Figures 3 and 4 should be combined, and only one example should be given (now all look the same)
Authors Response 05: Figure 3 and 4 cannot be combined even though they fit the same time scale, the parameters displayed on the charts are different. Figure 3 shows the variation of solar irradiation and productivity with daytime while Figure 4 shows variation of temperatures and productivity with daytime. Even though the figures look similar, they are not typical. In our opinion, showing only one example may be misleading.
Reviewer's Comment 06: Figures 5,6 and 7 should be combined
Authors Response 06: This comment has been addressed, Figures 5, 6 and 7 are now combined.
Reviewer's Comment 07: Line 6, a “study” does NOT “investigate”
Authors Response 07: The word “investigates” has been replaced with a more appropriate word “evaluates” as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 08: Line 7-8, delete sentence
Authors Response 08: Line 7-8 was deleted as suggested by reviewer, but it is our opinion to add part of this sentence to Line 5 to reflect the scope of our work.
Reviewer's Comment 09: Line 12, “modified” is “influenced”
Authors Response 09: Correction implemented based on reviewer’s comment.
Reviewer's Comment 10: Line 14-15, explain which insights are gained
Authors Response 10: The insights gained have been summarized in Line 9 to 13 prior to the sentence about insights.
Reviewer's Comment 11: Line 17-21, delete sentences
Authors Response 11: Line 17-21 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 12: Line 22, delete sentence
Authors Response 12: Line 22 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 13: Line 23, “significantly low long-term cost” doubtful if that is really true..
Authors Response 13: Word “significant” replaced with “projected” and relevant citation added.
Reviewer's Comment 14: Line 33, “a passive still” does not “occur”
Authors Response 14: Sentence rephrased for clarity based on reviewer’s comment.
Reviewer's Comment 15: Line 35-36, delete sentence
Authors Response 15: Line 35-36 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 16: Line 44-45, delete sentence
Authors Response 16: Line 44-45 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 17: Line 47-48, delete sentence
Authors Response 17: Line 47-48 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 18: Line 49, ambient temperature, solar radiation and wind velocity are already “weather conditions”
Authors Response 18: Editorial error, this has been corrected by the authors’
Reviewer's Comment 19: Line 49, “Often investigated operating factors ..”
Authors Response 19: Correction implemented based on reviewer’s comment
Reviewer's Comment 20: Line 67-68, delete sentence
Authors Response 20: Line 67-68 deleted as recommended by reviewer
Reviewer's Comment 21: Line 68-69, rephrase sentence. Not clear what is meant..
Authors Response 21: Line 68-69 deleted after careful consideration by authors’
Reviewer’s Comment 22: Line 77, not clear what is meant by “.. how selected COD parameters may affect productivity and purification efficacy.” In addition, “COD” is not properly introduced..(chemical oxygen demand? And why this is relevant for a solar still?
Authors Response 22: COD is an acronym coined for Climatic, Operation, and Design. This was first mentioned in Line 47-48 which has now been deleted based on reviewer’s comment. This is not related to Chemical Oxygen Demand as perceived by the reviewer. This sentence has been rephrased for clarity
Reviewer's Comment 23: Use past tenses for own work, e.g., Lines 87, 93, 207 “is” = “was”, Line 182 “reaches” = “reached”, Lines 186 and 186 “range” = “ranged”
Authors Response 23: Correction implemented based on reviewer’s comment
Reviewer's Comment 24: Line 126, why these variables were chosen? Temperature and salinity are “disturbance” parameters and not “operating” parameters.. Better is to evaluate what the effect of “operation” is on varying conditions..
Authors Response 24: These variables were selected because of their possible effect on productivity based on literature review as indicated in Line 46 and 47. The authors agree with the reviewer on these variables as disturbance parameters and reviewer’s comment implemented.
Reviewer's Comment 25: Line 129, delete sentence
Authors Response 25: Line 129 deleted as recommended by reviewer
Reviewer's Comment 26: Line 136-137, not clear what is the rational behind the “fast” and “slow” variation
Authors Response 26: Refer to Table 3. The variation is according to the structure of the design of experiment i.e., 23 factorial design.
Reviewer's Comment 27: Line 141-142, indicate the make and type of equipment that is used
Authors Response 27: The make and type of equipment used are stated in Table 2 and as referenced in Line 143.
Reviewer's Comment 28: Line 142-146, delete sentences
Authors Response 28: Line 142-146 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 29: Line 162, discuss in the context of other studies
Authors Response 29: The authors haven’t identified other studies where the quantitative technique was used to verify the difference in productivity of two solar stills fabricated using the same materials and operated simultaneously under similar conditions. The authors used this technique for fabrication assurance.
Reviewer's Comment 30: Line 253, explain figure 8a better and introduce x1, x2, x3..
Authors Response 30: Figure 8a reformatted with additional information and the variables X1, X2, X3 properly introduced as suggested by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 31: Line 255-256, the effect depends on the range that was chosen, so not a fair comparison..
Authors Response 31: The range that was chosen by the authors reflect the likely operating levels as indicated in line 127 since it is impossible to evaluate all the possible points in the range. The author’s intent was to evaluate the productivity as selected factors changed from one level to another, not necessarily comparing. This is shown Figure 8b. Increasing the range of the water depth for instance is unlikely to increase productivity.
Reviewer's Comment 32: Line 257, delete sentence
Authors Response 32: Line 257 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 33: Line 258-260, delete sentence from “in contrast” onwards..
Authors Response 33: Line 258-260 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 34: Line 269, delete sentence
Authors Response 34: Line 269 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 35: Line 272-285, delete entire section (not relevant)
Authors Response 35: Line 272-285 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 36: Line 288, discuss the reason for pH reduction
Authors Response 36: Discussion on the possible reason for pH reduction has been added as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 37: Line 288-289, delete sentence
Authors Response 37: Line 288-289 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 38: Line 299-301, delete sentences
Authors Response 38: Line 299-301 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 39: Line 313-317, delete sentences
Authors Response 39: Line 313-317 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 40: Line 322-324, delete sentence
Authors Response 40: Line 322-324 deleted as recommended by reviewer.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2021-19-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on dwes-2021-19', Bas Heijman, 15 May 2022
The solar stills in these experiments show a very low productivity (5 times lower or more) compared to conventional solar stills in literature. The problem here is that the authors fail to explain why this prodcutivity is so low.
The solar stills in these experiments show a high TDS in the destilate (about 2x the concentration in literature). The authors fail to explain the bad distilate quality.
Too many parameters are changing in the same experiment to draw any scientific conclusion. To give an example: The correlation between rainfall and prodcutivity is investigated. But during rainfall it is also probably cloudy and the irridiation is much lower. Both glass temperature as well as water temperature are influenced by the rainfall.
It is not clear why the authors selected certain parameters to evaluate. So why for instance correlate relative humidity of the air with the productivity in the solar still? What is the logic behind this? In my opinion the humidity of the serounding air is not influencing the evaporation/condensation proces in the solar stills.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2021-19-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Omololu Ogunseye, 22 Jun 2022
Reviewer's Comment 01: The solar stills in these experiments show a very low productivity (5 times lower or more) compared to conventional solar stills in literature. The problem here is that the authors fail to explain why this productivity is so low.
Authors Response 01: Reviewers’ comment has been addressed and some explanations for low productivity was added to the paper.
Reviewer's Comment 02: The solar stills in these experiments show a high TDS in the distillate (about 2x the concentration in literature). The authors fail to explain the bad distillate quality.
Authors Response 02: Explanations on the reason for high DS has been added as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer's Comment 03: Too many parameters are changing in the same experiment to draw any scientific conclusion. To give an example: The correlation between rainfall and productivity is investigated. But during rainfall it is also probably cloudy, and the irradiation is much lower. Both glass temperature as well as water temperature are influenced by the rainfall.
Authors Response 03: The authors would like to clarify that the correlation matrix generated using the collected data provided some insights to the existing relationship between the variables without implying cause and effect. Having that preliminary understanding as indicated in line 164 to 171, the authors further explored the data to draw some conclusions. We acknowledge the interrelatedness of the mentioned variables; however, the correlation analysis was mainly to identify pattern and was the first step of the analysis.
Reviewer's Comment 04: It is not clear why the authors selected certain parameters to evaluate. So why for instance correlate relative humidity of the air with the productivity in the solar still? What is the logic behind this? In my opinion the humidity of the surrounding air is not influencing the evaporation/condensation process in the solar stills.
Authors Response 04: The parameters selected was based on literature reviews and preliminary data collected during the experiment. The authors agree with reviewer’s observation on the unlikely influence of relative humidity on productivity which seems to be counter-intuitive. However, our data revealed some correlation. The data was analyzed further to identify trend and to help draw some scientific conclusions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2021-19-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Omololu Ogunseye, 22 Jun 2022
Data sets
Performance analysis of a basin-type solar still during harmattan - Raw Data Omololu Ogunseye; Ade Omole-Adebomi; Sulaimon Salami https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/xhtnypxx6b/1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 481 | 179 | 46 | 706 | 31 | 39 |
- HTML: 481
- PDF: 179
- XML: 46
- Total: 706
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 39
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
2 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Extended experimental investigation of a double-effect active solar still with a paraffin wax, in Owerri, Nigeria E. C. NWOSU et al. 10.18186/thermal.1374686
- COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF SOLAR STILL WITH AND WITHOUT BASIN LINE WITH BLACK POLYTHENE FILM N. Musa & H. Igoh 10.33003/fjs-2024-0804-2706