1. Introduction
The utilization of electrolysis for green hydrogen production presents novel prospects in the context of energy storage for dynamic and intermittent power generation, such as that driven by solar and wind resources. This arises from the fact that hydrogen, when employed as a fuel, facilitates the generation of electricity with water as the sole by-product. This process establishes hydrogen as an appealing choice for sustainable energy storage given its exceptional efficiency and adaptability, leading to the complete absence of carbon emissions. Furthermore, the adoption of hydrogen as a fuel holds promise in addressing the adverse impacts of climate change. However, within the realm of electrolysis, there is a prevalent preference for the use of pure water to ensure the optimal production of hydrogen. Put differently, the water source employed in the electrolysis process suitable for industrial operations should exhibit minimal contaminants and metal ions, characterized by high resistivity, even as high as 18 MΩ [
1].
It is interesting to note that various approaches have been demonstrated to produce hydrogen directly from seawater. However, as the energy consumption and operational costs of these approaches are relatively high, none of them have been able to reach the commercialization stage for hydrogen production. For example, Guo demonstrated a seawater electrolyzer using Lewis acid-modified electrodes (Cr
2O
3–CoO
+) that can hydrolyze seawater directly [
2]. However, the long-term stability and reliability of this electrolyzer is still not proven, and it cannot be said with certainty that it can be used for large scale industrial applications. Xie reported a non-desalinated direct seawater electrolysis technology that can also generate hydrogen directly from seawater [
3]. This technology includes porous membranes that can separate the electrolytes from the seawater. Specifically, the fluorine-rich membrane keeps liquid seawater out but allows pure water vapor to pass through. In this technology, a membrane is still required before electrolyzing the water. The driving force for the membrane separation is the salt concentration difference. However, as the concentration difference is relatively small, the low driving force somewhat limits the hydrogen production scale. So, seawater electrolysis technologies are still in the early research and development stages [
4,
5,
6]. For commercial large-scale electrolysis to generate clean hydrogen, pure water is still an essential component for industrial applications.
There are currently many methods for industrial desalination of contaminated water, brackish water, and seawater. These methods are relatively high energy consumers and are not suitable for small-scale and/or off-grid operations. Common industrial methods for producing pure water primarily encompass the following steps: the source water initially undergoes filtration through activated carbon filters and/or UV disinfection treatments. The activated carbon treatment typically offers a cost-effective means of generating prefiltered water [
7]. Following this step, the prefiltered water enters a reverse osmosis (RO) system to remove minute impurities, particularly metal ions. Reverse osmosis operates through the application of pressure, employing semi-permeable membranes for the purification of feed water [
8]. It selectively prevents the passage of contaminants and ions larger than 0.5 nm in size (equivalent to the hydrated Na
+ ion cluster). After RO filtration, the water can be subjected to an ion exchange step to eliminate any remaining ions. Activated carbon again plays a vital role here, enabling the physical adsorption of contaminants through chemical and physical interactions between the substrate surface, enriched with active functional groups and the contaminants [
9]. However, it is noteworthy that complete pure water generation systems involving RO and/or ion exchange typically require substantial capital investments. Furthermore, conventional RO systems consume significant amounts of energy and utilize approximately three times as much water as they produce [
10]. Excluding installation costs, pure water is valued between USD 0.15/m³ and USD 0.50/m³ [
11]. Incorporating system installation and maintenance expenses would increase the overall cost significantly.
In this study, we demonstrate a facile technique to produce pure water, achieved through field-tested units based on a previously simulated and verified design of an integrated photovoltaic (PV)/membrane distillation (MD) system [
12], characterized by economical capital and operational costs. MD represents a non-isothermal membrane separation process utilized for water purification. Within the MD system, a hydrophobic membrane divides the feed and permeate streams. The driving mechanism in MD relies on the partial pressure differential between these two streams, a consequence of the temperature variance. Previous demonstrations by Bodell and Weyl have established the suitability of this process for desalination and wastewater treatment [
13,
14]. Since then, various MD configurations were reported, with the field unit devices adopting a flat-top air gap membrane distillation (AGMD) system, leveraging the waste heat generated by PV panels. In the AGMD arrangement, a hydrophobic membrane serves as a barrier between the feed water and condensation channels. Direct contact with the hydrophobic membrane is maintained by the feed water, while an air gap, accompanied by a condensation plate, is present on the membrane’s opposite side. The hydrophobic membrane’s role is to permit vapor transmission while allowing the liquid feed water to pass through. The vapor travels through the membrane and air gap until it reaches the cooling plate on the opposing side, where it condenses into highly pure water.
The process of MD hinges on an essential disparity in partial vapor pressure across the membrane, necessitating an external heat source. Notably, the Wang group has recently showcased the utilization of waste heat from solar panels as a viable energy reservoir for water purification through MD operation [
15,
16,
17,
18]. This approach is rooted in the fact that, despite the substantial energy absorption capacity of solar panels, conventional PV systems can only convert roughly 20% of incident solar energy into electricity, leaving the remainder to be dissipated as heat [
19]. This surplus heat presents an opportune energy source, particularly when harnessed by a flat MD unit positioned beneath the PV panel. Such a configuration (
Figure 1) can yield pure water, ideally suited for hydrogen production via electrolysis. For the current investigation, we employed a flat top PV-MD system for field testing to determine the efficiency of previously simulated and indoor tested devices. The multilayered MD unit’s design initially underwent computational simulation, with meticulous material selection to assess the unit’s operational efficacy. After small scale testing, it was scaled up to field testable units.
3. Results
3.1. Lab Testing of Five-Layer PV-MD System
Preceding the assembly of the field-testing units, the construction and integrity of the PV-MD device were carefully investigated, with a major focus on detecting leaks or other engineering anomalies. The five-layer PV-MD apparatus featured middle condensation plates crafted from 316L stainless steel, each measuring 50 microns in thickness. The uppermost plate was constructed from 316 stainless steel, with a thickness of 0.9 mm, while the lower plate was 0.75 mm thickness of 316 stainless steel. To achieve hermetic sealing of the device, the stainless steel sheets underwent a coating process with Goop gel. The lateral sealing procedure entailed the utilization of PE Supreme silicone and G/flex 605 to securely seal the layers, thereby ensuring the prevention of any water leakage. A series of experiments with assessments were conducted over several days, simulating the complete temperature cycle from early morning to late afternoon.
Preliminary investigations were initiated through the implementation of two 120V heating pads arranged in a serial configuration, subsequently connected to a variable transformer. The outcomes of these initial evaluations are illustrated in
Figure 4 and
Figure 5, corresponding to the results obtained during the first two days of experimentation. The synthetic seawater utilized in the inhouse tests as well as field tests was measured to have a conductivity between 65–70 milli-siemens (mS).
Analysis of these outcomes permits the conclusion that the five-layer system demonstrates the capacity to generate pure water characterized by low conductivity levels (below 45 μS), coupled with commendable rates of water production. It is worth noting that the initial data point recorded exhibited a relatively elevated conductivity measurement, warranting an in-depth inquiry. After an extensive series of tests and investigative procedures, it was discerned that potential microleaks might originate from the feed channel. Nonetheless, the predominant source contributing to the observed conductivity levels was attributed to the gradual release of ions from the material components. Following the resolution of engineering challenges and the rectification of any structural integrity issues within the device, the results displayed in
Figure 6 were obtained.
With the experimental data, it was concluded that the five-layer apparatus produces ideal fresh water that can be utilized for further experiments such as hydrogen electrolysis. With acceptable data produced, the systems were moved from lab to outdoors for field testing.
3.2. Field Testing Results
3.2.1. Field Design 1 (Table 1)
Following the assessment of the lab apparatus, the experimental device was subsequently transitioned to outdoor field-testing setup. This outdoor counterpart retained the fundamental design principles of the lab model but was with different size measurements, now encompassing a device measuring 20 by 24 inches. The initial design configuration, elaborated upon previously and depicted in
Figure 1, served as the foundational reference point.
The device was positioned in an outdoor location, characterized by ample sunlight, with the commencement of the tests each day initiated promptly at 9:00 AM. Subsequently, the system was retrieved for measurements at 4:00 PM, marking the end of each testing session. Continuous temperature monitoring was conducted throughout the day, and the cooling water was replaced throughout the day to ensure the effective management of the cooling system and to mitigate the risk of overheating.
Table 1.
Results of Design 1 field test.
Table 1.
Results of Design 1 field test.
Test Number | Start Time | End Time | Net Permeation Weight (G) | Permeation Conductivity (μS) |
---|
1 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 2146.1 | 117.3 |
2 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 2392.0 | 135.4 |
This data reveals that the system consistently yielded a daily water production ranging between 2100 and 2400 g. However, it is noteworthy that the conductivity measurements exhibited a slight increase compared to the lab testing. It is imperative to acknowledge that the daily water production exhibits some degree of variation, attributable to the fluctuating weather conditions and outdoor temperatures experienced on different days. The conductivity measurements, although higher than lab results, indicate that fresh water is produced by the apparatus and that the water produced could be utilized for further experiments. These initial findings, although promising, underscore the potential for further enhancements in the design of the field test unit, with the objective of reducing energy consumption and augmenting overall system performance.
3.2.2. Field Design 2 (Table 2)
The second field design was constructed utilizing the same conditioning methods and size measurements as design one. This apparatus includes a reservoir that collects the returning cooling water as well as the concentrated feed water. The feeding water was taken from this container, and the overflow of the container returns to the cooling tank. This design change increases the temperature of the feeding water, while simultaneously increasing the productivity of the device. This system still utilizes multiple peristaltic pumps to flow the water through the system requiring the same amount of energy consumption as design one.
The testing of Design 2 was run similarly to the testing of Design 1. The device was positioned in an outdoor location, characterized by ample sunlight, with the commencement of the tests each day initiated promptly at 9:00 AM. Subsequently, the system was retrieved for measurements at 4:00 PM, marking the end of each testing session. Continuous temperature monitoring was conducted throughout the day, and the cooling water was replaced throughout the day to ensure the effective management of the cooling system and mitigate the risk of overheating.
Table 2.
Results of Design 2 field test.
Table 2.
Results of Design 2 field test.
Test Number | Start Time | End Time | Net Permeation Weight (g) | Permeation Conductivity (µS) |
---|
1 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 2213.0 | 93.6 |
2 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 3234.3 | 132.1 |
3 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 3654.2 | 126.2 |
4 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 4090.8 | 130.9 |
The conducted experiments highlight the substantial enhancements achieved through the modifications introduced in the transition from the initial design to the current configuration. Notably, it is evident that there is a degree of variability present in the quantity of fresh water produced during each test. While the observed water production values have consistently exhibited an upward trajectory and reached relatively high levels, the significant variability in mass is subject for further investigation. It is conceivable that this variability is linked to the prevailing outdoor weather conditions and fluctuating temperatures, a topic to be discussed in greater detail in subsequent discussions.
Furthermore, it is imperative to acknowledge that the conductivity of the produced water shows a direct correlation with the volume of water generated, an aspect that is less than ideal. However, the observed conductivity levels remain within the established thresholds for classifying the produced water as freshwater, undergoing an increase with the increment in mass.
3.2.3. Field Design 3 (Table 3)
The development process of the third field design closely paralleled the conditioning and size measurements applied in the construction of its predecessors. Like the Design 2, thermal management principles remained consistent. However, in this design, a noteworthy modification was introduced by elevating the position of the reservoir to facilitate the self-flow of feed water due to potential energy. This innovative self-flow design, which allows for the elimination of one of the peristaltic pumps, has a two-fold benefit: it reduces energy consumption and introduces a valve for the precise control of the feed water flow.
The tests for this system were conducted similarly to both Design 1 and 2.
Table 3.
Results of Design 3 field test.
Table 3.
Results of Design 3 field test.
Test Number | Start Time | End Time | Net Permeation Weight (g) | Permeation Conductivity (μS) |
---|
1 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 2910.8 | 142.1 |
2 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 2401.6 | 131.9 |
3 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 2779.8 | 124.4 |
4 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 2917.6 | 119.6 |
5 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 2761.7 | 124.1 |
6 | 9:00 AM | 4:00 PM | 2693.8 | 131.4 |
Across all conducted tests, the net weight of freshwater production exhibited a good degree of uniformity, paralleled by closely aligned conductivity measurements. The system generated a consistent volume of freshwater daily, even with a reduced number of pumps in operation. This underscores that the third design has increased efficiency requiring fewer pumps to achieve successful outcomes, consequently implying a reduced energy demand from the solar panel. The power required for the pump is about 10% of the total energy generated by the solar panel. The solar panel having excess energy could be utilized for other instrumentation or other sources requiring electricity while simultaneously running this field design for freshwater creation.
3.3. Weather and Temperature Considerations
The weather and temperature throughout the day have a high impact on the results of the field test designs.
Table 4 highlights the effects of temperature and outdoor weather on the production of freshwater.
Throughout the testing phases of each design iteration, records of temperature measurements and prevailing weather conditions were documented to assess their potential influence on freshwater production. The system is intricately dependent on the solar panel not only for powering the peristaltic pumps but also for excess heat from the solar panel to induce the required partial pressure differences. The functionality of the PV-MD system is contingent on the supplementary heat supplied by the solar panel. This process is highly dependent on the weather and solar conditions at the time of the experiment. If there was a lack of solar rays or a poor weather condition, the system would not be able to produce water consistently.
An analysis of the temperature readings strongly suggests that temperature exerts a discernible impact on the daily water production. Higher temperatures are associated with increased water production while lower temperatures result in diminished water yield. The water production values exhibit variations corresponding to differing temperature regimes. In contrast, it does not appear that conductivity is substantially affected by temperature or prevailing weather conditions, as conductivity values display variations irrespective of these factors.
3.4. Summary of Experimental Results
This investigation examines the impact of ambient temperature on freshwater production, revealing a positive correlation with higher temperatures enhancing the yield of low-conductivity water. The utilization of pre-heated cooling water in the membrane distillation (MD) system is identified as a strategy to improve production efficiency. Comparative analysis indicates superior performance of Design 3 over Design 2, with both configurations exhibiting enhanced efficacy relative to Design 1, signifying incremental improvements with each modification to the apparatus. The MD system’s power consumption is determined to be only 10% of the total solar panel output, thereby allowing for the allocation of the remaining 90% of power to other applications or devices. The synthetic salt water utilized exhibits a conductivity of 65–70 mS, and post-MD processing, the resulting fresh water demonstrates a significant reduction in conductivity to an average of 125 µS. This substantial decrease in ions attests to the efficacy of the designed and tested membrane distillation apparatus in selectively allowing the passage of fresh water while impeding unwanted ions through its hydrophobic membrane. Water production data, detailed in
Table 4, indicates that, with a 20″ × 24″ PV-MD panel, freshwater production exceeds 3 gallons/m
2/day at 32 °C during summer. Design 3 consistently achieves an average production of 2.2 gallons/m
2/day at an ambient temperature of 24 °C. The findings underscore the temperature-dependent nature of freshwater production, with higher temperatures yielding increased output from the system apparatus.
4. Discussion
This present field study investigated the performance of three MD designs (Design 1, Design 2, and Design 3) integrated with a photovoltaic (PV) panel under real operational conditions. The results confirm that several factors significantly impact the freshwater production rate of the MD systems.
Impact of Ambient Temperature: A clear correlation was observed between ambient temperature and freshwater production. Higher ambient temperatures resulted in increased freshwater production, likely due to enhanced evaporation rates within the MD unit. To capitalize on this effect, pre-heating the feedwater using the cooling water from the system proved to be an effective strategy.
Performance Comparison: Among the tested designs, Design 3 demonstrated the highest freshwater production rate, followed by Design 2 and then Design 1. This suggests that the specific design features of Design 3 can play a crucial role in optimizing performance. Further research is needed to identify the specific design elements contributing to this improved efficiency.
Conductivity Variation: The initial data point in each test consistently exhibited a higher conductivity reading compared to subsequent measurements. This phenomenon could be attributed to the evaporation of residual saline water within the channels after testing. This evaporation process leads to salt crystal formation, which can potentially penetrate the membrane during drying. Upon reintroduction of water for the next test, these crystals can be dissolved, causing an initial increase in the conductivity. This high initial data point has been recognized and accounted for in the analysis.
Energy Consumption: The power consumption of the MD system was found to be minimal, representing only around 10% of the total power generated by the PV panel. This low energy footprint underscores the potential of the demonstrated PV/MD system for sustainable desalination applications.
Freshwater Production: The desalination process successfully reduced the conductivity of the saltwater feed (65–70 mS) to an average of 125 µS in the produced freshwater.
Table 4 summarizes the freshwater production rates in grams/day. Notably, under favorable ambient temperatures (32 °C), the PV-MD panel achieved a production rate exceeding 3 gallons/m²/day. Even at a more moderate average temperature (24 °C), Design 3 delivered an average freshwater production rate of 2.2 gallons/m²/day. These results demonstrate the practical usage of this integrated solar-powered desalination system for providing clean water in various environmental conditions.