Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Dynamic Parameters of the Switching-On Process of Electromagnetic Relays Powered by Harmonic Polluted Voltage Source
Previous Article in Journal
Stress–Strain Behavior and Fatigue of High-Temperature Component Made of P92 Steel in a Coal-Fired Power Boiler
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 17
Issue 12
10.3390/en17122871
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Nanocoating on the Performance of Photovoltaic Solar Panels in Al Seeb, Oman

by
Girma T. Chala
1,*,
Shaharin A. Sulaiman
2,
Xuecheng Chen
3,* and
Salim S. Al Shamsi
1
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering (Well Engineering), International College of Engineering and Management, P.O. Box 2511, C.P.O Seeb, Muscat 111, Oman
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia
3
Faculty of Chemical Technology and Engineering, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Piastów Ave. 42, 71-065 Szczecin, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2024, 17(12), 2871; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17122871
Submission received: 28 May 2024 / Revised: 7 June 2024 / Accepted: 11 June 2024 / Published: 12 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section A2: Solar Energy and Photovoltaic Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels are projected to become the largest contributor of clean electricity generation worldwide. Maintenance and cleaning strategies are crucial for optimizing solar PV operations, ensuring a satisfactory economic return of investment. Nanocoating may have potential for optimizing PV operations; however, there is insufficient scientific evidence that supports this idea. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effectiveness of nanocoating on the performance of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels installed in Al Seeb, Oman. A further study was also carried out to observe the influence of coating layers on the performance of PV panels. One SiO2 nanocoated solar panel, another regularly cleaned PV panel, and a reference uncleaned panel were used to carry out the study. The site of the study was treeless and sandy, with a hot and dry climate. A data logger was connected to the solar PV panel and glass panel to record the resulting voltage, current, temperature, and solar radiation. It was observed that nanocoated PV panels outperformed both regular PV panels and uncleaned PV panels. Nanocoated PV panels demonstrated an average efficiency of 21.6%, showing a 31.7% improvement over uncleaned panels and a 9.6% improvement over regularly cleaned panels. Although nanocoating displayed high efficiency, regular cleaning also contributes positively. Furthermore, even though nanocoated PV panels outperformed the other two panels, it is important to note that the performance difference between the regular cleaned PV panels and the nanocoated PV panels was small. This indicates that regular cleaning strategies and nanocoating can further contribute to maintaining a more efficient solar PV system. Coating in many layers was also observed to influence the performance of PV panels insignificantly, mainly the fourth layer coating appeared to have formed sufficient mass to retain heat.

1. Introduction

Solar PV energy is projected to become the largest renewable energy source for electricity generation in the future [1,2,3]. Solar PV experiences detrimental power loss due to soiling. Consequently, a mitigating mechanism needs to be adopted to enhance green power generation. Solar PV technology can function both independently and by connecting to the grid [4]. Allouhi et al. [5] reported that the utilization rate of PV technology has increased globally at a rate of 21% from 483 GW to 580 GW. This is due to the high utilization rates recorded in Asia, followed by those of Europe. Although the utilization rates of PV technology have increased, the current technology illustrates conversion efficiencies of less than 25%. This highlights the significance of identifying improvement parameters and factors that may impede the technology’s performance.
Khalid. et al. [6] discussed that different parameters could hamper the performance of solar PV. Various environmental conditions, including humidity, rain, storms, and dust, can accumulate and fuse to form a variety of soiling forms, hindering the PV system’s energy yield. Thus, it is important to identify cleaning and maintenance strategies that can maintain optimal performance and output optimal power generation [7,8]. Batool et al. [9] emphasized the importance of exploring cleaning strategies due to the power output reduction caused by the PV system’s optical loss and reduced spectral absorption as a consequence of dust aggregation or accumulation. This could cause power outputs to drop by a range from 3% to 50%. The defined range can vary with humidity, temperature, and rainfall. In addition to climate conditions, the output efficiency range can also be dependent on the dust particle size. Therefore, one of the cleaning strategies explored nowadays is a self-cleaning technology, which includes a surface consisting of a nanocoating that can be hydrophobic.
Muller et al. [10] explored nanocomposites within the framework of nanotechnology, defining them as materials comprised of two or more substances. Furthermore, the material is required to span from an approximate minimum dimension of 1 nm to a maximum of 100 nm. Nanocomposites can also be utilized as nanocoatings, which can be applied as a layer on the selected material to achieve the required surface performance [11,12]. SiO2, TiO2, and ZnO are examples of nano oxides that can be utilized to create nanocomposites for UV protection applications. In addition to UV protection, nano oxides have a self-cleaning function. Yadav and Mishra [13] stated that nanotechnology presents greater opportunities in the solar energy sector than those currently explored. One potential application of nanotechnology is to address the power loss of solar PV systems due to dust accumulation. Applying nanocoating to solar glass can significantly improve transmission rates, potentially increasing efficiency by up to 96%. These coatings reduce reflectance across a wide spectral range, resulting in a notable increase in output power (equivalent to a 10% relative efficiency improvement). Furthermore, these coatings have minimal dust accumulation and are easily cleaned by rainwater, thus directly impacting panels’ performance [14].
There are two primary advantages of nanocoating PV panels [15]. A hydrophobic nanocoating is especially beneficial in rainy climates; the hydrophobic nature of these coatings quickly repels water, aiding in the efficient removal of water during inclement weather [16]. The other advantage, the self-cleaning effect of the coatings, prevents dust and bird droppings from adhering to PV panels, making it easier for rainwater or manual spraying to remove dirt. This regular cleaning helps maintain panel efficiency and ensures maximum electricity production. It is worth noting that in climates that are warm with little to no rainfall, occasional manual cleaning may still be necessary to keep the panels operating at a peak efficiency [17]. Elsaadawi et al. [18] investigated the impacts of nanocoating on the performance of PV panels. With silica nanoparticles of size 11 nm, they observed that the dust densities after 40 days of exposure to outdoor conditions were 10 g/m2 and 4.30 g/m2 for reference and nanocoated PV panels, respectively.
Ehsan et al. [19] reported the effects of hydrophobic nanocoating on the electrical power generation from PV panels. They observed a reduction in dust deposition on the PV panels coated with nanofluids. On average, nanocoating improved the performance of PV panels by 11% when compared with noncoated panels. In a different study, Aldawoud et al. [20] observed the effects of covering the PV panels using motorized curtains during night time and dust storms. They also studied the ability of hydrophobic coatings to reduce dust accumulation on the surface of PV panels. For both cases, the performance of PV systems was improved with a lower soiling effect. Al Bakri et al. [21] used a SurfaShield G nanomaterial, with a primary component of titanium dioxide, to enhance the performance of solar PV panels. Both indoor and outdoor experiments were conducted for three months in the harsh climatic conditions of the Levant area in Jordan. It was found that nanocoating improved power and efficiency by 20% and 2.3%, respectively. SurfaShield G nanomaterial performed slightly better than SiO2 by 0.3%. The efficiency drops after dust accumulation, 0.4% and 0.2% for SiO2 and SurfaShield G nanomaterials, respectively. Abbood et al., 2024 [22] reviewed the use of TiO2, ZnO, and CNT as a nanocomposite coating to enhance the efficiency of solar PV. For instance, the use of a carbon nano tube (CNT) as an antireflection nanocomposite material improved efficiency by 31.25%. Transmittance performance was higher for the coated panels, where a higher solar irradiation on the coated PV panels resulted in an increased efficiency. For a solar power plant of 12.5 MW, Ehsan et al. [23] estimated that nanocoating could save around USD 100,000 annually as a result of performance improvement.
Al-Badar et al. [24] used three panels to study the effects of antistatic coatings assisted by a mechanical vibrator to cause the dust to fall from the PV panel using gravity force. The nanocoated panel with a mechanical vibrator significantly outperformed that without a vibrator and the reference panel. In a different study, Chaturvedi et al. [25] used Fluoro Alkyl Silane (FAS) with silica nanoparticles as a self-cleaning hydrophobic nanomaterial to improve the performance of solar PV. With one month of observation in the outdoor conditions, coated PV shows an efficiency improvement of 14.38% as opposed to the uncoated panel. Hydrophilic nanocoating was also reported to improve the power output by 18% when compared with manually cleaned panels [26]. Aljdaeh et al. [27] investigated the effectiveness of SiO2 nanocoating on the performance of PV panels and water consumption during cleaning. It was observed that nanocoated PV displayed a 13% power improvement when compared with uncoated panels, even without regular cleaning. The uncoated panel used 50% more water consumption than the coated panel. Fathi et al. [28] also observed that hydrophobic coating lowers dust density and electrical losses. Pedrazzi et al. [29] observed the effectiveness of a coating immediately after its application on PV surfaces, observing an energy gain of 1.82%. However, the energy gain decreased to 0.69% after five months of observation. The authors recommended a cost–benefit analysis before implementing nanocoating on the PV panels.
It can be implied from past studies that a nanocoating would be effective in countries with large solar resources and large bulk quantities of dust, such as the Sultanate of Oman. Nevertheless, there is a lack of scientific evidence that supports the idea of nanocoating solar PV panels. The objective of this study is, therefore, to investigate the effectiveness of nanocoating on the performance of PV panels in Al Seeb, Oman. A further study was also carried out to observe the influences of coating layers on PV performance. This would provide insights when coating the surface of PV panels with nanofluids in a layer.

2. Experimental Setup and Techniques

This experimental study was conducted in Al Seeb, Muscat, Oman. The Sultanate of Oman is located in the extreme southeast of the Arabian Peninsula. Much of the country’s interior is located in the Rub al-Khali, a sandy, treeless, and generally waterless region of the Arabian Peninsula. The climate of Oman is frequently hot and dry inland and hot and humid around the coast. Summer temperatures in Muscat, the capital, can reach 43 °C, with high humidity. Winters are moderate, with low temperatures averaging approximately 17 °C. Indoor temperatures are comparable but slightly milder at higher elevations.
Sandstorms are an annual phenomenon in Oman, typically taking place during the summer months when the region experiences elevated temperatures and dry weather conditions. Massive amounts of fine sand and dust particles are carried across the landscape by powerful winds during these natural phenomena, and this reduces visibility and degrades the quality of the air. In Oman, sandstorms can have a significant impact on solar PV systems. Sand and dust buildup on the PV panels’ surfaces decreases their capacity to absorb sunlight, significantly lowering the output of electrical power. By acting as a barrier, the dust particles cause shadows to appear on the panels and block sunlight from reaching the solar cells. To counteract these negative effects, the regular maintenance and cleaning of PV panels has become crucial.
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the experimental setup. Three monocrystalline half-cut PV modules were used to study the effects of nano-coating on the performance of PV panels. In addition, three glass panels were also installed in parallel with the PV panels to investigate the impact of dust on solar irradiance and power generation. The PV panels were situated at coordinates 23°34′34″ N 58°18′07″ E and were set at a height of 1.2 m from the ground, facing south. The PV panels were connected to a power meter to measure the panels’ power output, and the solar irradiance was measured under the control panels (glass panel) using an Arduino microcontroller (solar energy meter). Each solar PV panel had up to three thermal sensors at different points on the back surface of the panels to measure their temperatures. The solar PV panels were connected to the data logger to measure the output power of the panels and standard parameters such as open circuit voltage (VOC), short circuit current (ISC), solar panel temperature, ambient temperature, and solar radiation. Panel 1 was lined with a nanocoated layer, and it was cleaned. Panel 2 was normal and cleaned using a motorized cleaning brush with water, as shown in Figure 2. Panel 3 was used as a reference for the experiment and was exposed to dust for a long time. The data were collected in short intervals via the PC. Three polycrystalline solar PV modules with a capacity of 180 W, one inverter with a capacity of 2000 W, and one solar charge controller with a capacity of 50 A were used in this system.
To study the influence of coating layers on the performance of PV panels, SiO2 was coated on the surface of PV panels until the four different layers. It was highlighted that from 5 to 10 mL of the material could be applied per square meter of solar photovoltaic panels. It could be applied to a thickness of about 8–10 μm. To coat the surface of the PV panel, it was first cleaned using water. The towel was used to dry the surface and remove fine dirt from the PV panel. The SiO2 nanomaterial was then sprayed evenly on all sides and distributed homogenously with a clean microfiber towel. The surface was then left for at least 2 h until fully dried. The same procedure was followed when making different coating layers.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Performance of Coated PV Panel

The performances of the PV panels under three different settings were compared in terms of electrical parameters, including current, power, and voltage. Figure 3 shows the resulting output current profiles for the nanocoated and cleaned panels. The nanocoated panels displayed consistent and stable current outputs. This was apparent due to the current ranging from a minimum of 5.2 A to a maximum of 5.6 A, which indicates a consistent electrical performance with an average of 5.4 A. The regular PV panels and nanocoated PV panels displayed stable current outputs, indicating consistency. Although the current output ranges were closer, the nanocoated PV panels demonstrated higher electrical performance in comparison with an average of 5.4 A, while the regular PV panels displayed an average of 5.3 A.
The nanocoated PV panels also demonstrate more stable performance in terms of voltage output, with a narrow output range of between 14.1 V and 14.8 V and with an average of 14.4 V, as shown in Figure 4. On the other hand, the uncleaned PV panels display relatively lower voltage outputs, and this relates to dust accumulation. The range of data showed an average of 14.1 V, a maximum of 14.3 V, and a minimum of 14.0 V. The regular cleaned PV panel was able to demonstrate a close range to the nanocoated PV panel, where it produced a minimum of 14.0 V and a maximum of 14.6 V with an average of 14.2 V. Although the results across both are approximately similar, the nanocoating was able to outperform the regular PV panels, indicating a more stable voltage output. Kumar et al. [30] also reported a significant power improvement in solar PV using an antireflection coating.
The variations in electrical power generated from the nanocoated and cleaned panels are compared in Figure 5. Although nanocoated PV panels and regular clean PV panels display a closer range in the current and voltage outputs, the variance between them in maximum power was relatively high, showing that a silica nanocoating would help the PV panel produce more power, principally due to a repelling agent against the dust. The nanocoated PV panels generated higher power outputs, consistently showcasing a range with a minimum power output of 77.4 W and a maximum power output of 93.5 W. The following range surpasses the regular cleaned PV panels, which illustrates a power output ranging from a minimum of 60.7 W to a maximum power output of 79.75 W. On average, the nanocoated PV panels generated 83.9 W of electrical power, whereas the regular cleaned PV panels generated an average of 72.2 W. This represents about 16.2% power increase for nanocoated PV panels as compared to regular cleaned PV panels. The cleaning of the panel maintains the output power. Its simple operating concept also makes it more efficient. The cleaning method, on the other hand, uses more water and needs brush maintenance [31]. The findings of this study are in agreement with those reported by Tayel et al. [32].
The efficiency of the nanocoated, cleaned, and uncleaned panels is depicted in Figure 6. The nanocoated panel is shown to have the highest average efficiency rate in comparison to the regular clean PV panels and uncleaned PV panels, with an average record of 21.6%. The nanocoated PV panel showed an increase in efficiency at the rate of 31.7% when compared to the uncleaned PV panel, which had an average efficiency of 16.4%. The regularly cleaned panels displayed an average efficiency of 19.7%. When the nanocoated PV panels are compared to the regularly cleaned panels, they show an increase in efficiency of approximately 9.6%. A similar trend was also reported in a study by Alamri et al. [33], who investigated the impact of hydrophobic SiO2 nanomaterials on the performance of PV panels installed in Egypt. SiO2-coated PV panels performed better with efficiency improvements of 15% and 5% when compared with dusty panels that were not cleaned during the investigation and uncoated panels, which were manually cleaned daily, respectively.

3.2. Effects of Coating Layers on the Temperature and Voltage of PV Panels

Silica nanofluids were coated over the surface of PV panels in different layers to observe the effects of nanocoating on the performance of PV panels. They were coated in four different layers, and the results were compared with the reference panel. The effect of the first layer coating on the surface temperature of PV panel is depicted in Figure 7. The variation of solar irradiance of the day for the first coating is shown in Figure 7a. The maximum solar irradiance was 813.7 W/m2, with an average solar irradiance of 437.9 W/m2. Temperature profiles for the first layer of nanocoated and uncleaned panels are shown in Figure 7b. It was observed that nanocoated panel had a lower temperature throughout the day as opposed to the reference panel. The maximum temperature for the unclean panel was 56 °C. However, the nanocoated panel had a maximum surface temperature of 52.6 °C. The low temperature indicated that the nanocoating contributed to maintaining stable temperature levels to improve thermal management.
The influence of a double-layer coating was further investigated. Figure 8a shows the solar irradiance for the second layer coating. It can be seen that the maximum solar irradiance for the day was 853.2 W/m2, with an average irradiance of 293.2 W/m2. Figure 8b shows the temperature profiles when the panel was coated in a double layer. It can be seen that the temperature differences between the nanocoated and reference panels were minimal. The maximum temperature for the coated panel was 37.2 °C, while it was 37.4 °C for the uncoated panel.
Figure 9 shows solar irradiance, temperature, and voltage profiles of PV panels coated with three layers. Solar irradiance, shown to increase gradually with time, is depicted in Figure 9a. The maximum solar irradiance was 648 W/m2, with an average solar irradiance of 576.9 W/m2. Figure 9b shows temperature differences between nanocoated and uncoated panels. The variations in temperature differences between the nanocoated and uncleaned panels were not significant but consistent. The maximum temperature of the uncleaned panel was 51.1 °C, with an average surface temperature of 44.2 °C. This was 49.4 °C for the coated panel, with an average temperature of 43.7 °C. The nanocoated panel performed better than the reference panel, as can be seen in the voltage profiles in Figure 9c.
Silica nanofluid was further coated on the surface of PV panel in the fourth layer, and its performance was compared with that of a reference panel that was not coated. The influence of the fourth layer coating is depicted in Figure 10. The solar irradiance of the day for the fourth layer is depicted in Figure 10a. The maximum solar irradiance was 924.4 °C. As can be seen in Figure 10b, the nanocoated panel exhibited a slightly higher surface temperature than that of the uncoated panel. The coating appears to have formed sufficient mass to retain heat. In addition, the coating might not allow radiation heat to be reflected, thus causing a slight increase in temperature. This indicates that further coating might not result in a performance improvement. Figure 10c compares the voltage profiles between the coated and uncoated panels. The voltage production was slightly higher for the nanocoated panel throughout the day, showing that nanocoating improves the performance of the PV panels when there are minor changes in the temperature. The voltage output range between the nanocoated PV panels and uncleaned panel is also considered to be high due to a reduction in light absorption and conversion efficiency. The nanocoated panel further reveals a self-cleaning effect. It is anticipated that a silica nanocoating would repel against dust, which would make cleaning easier and reduce the amount of water used for the cleaning. The effects of a superhydrophobic nanocoating on the solar cell parameters were also investigated by Ehsan et al. [23], who observed an improved open-circuit voltage, short-circuit current and power generation with a nanocoating. They noticed a lower temperature surface temperature of PV panels when coated as opposed to uncoated PV panel.

4. Conclusions

Maintenance and cleaning strategies play a pivotal role in optimizing and improving the performance of solar PV. Although there are various methods to achieve this, nanocoating emerges as one of the most effective methods to achieve adequate maintenance strategies. Subsequently, this paper presents the influence of nanocoating on the performance of solar PV panels. A further study was also carried out to observe the effects of silica coating layers on the performance of PV panels. Nanocoated PV panels displayed an efficiency of 21.6%, which was 31.7% higher than the uncleaned panel and 9.6% higher than the regularly cleaned panel. Regular cleaning also has a positive effect, with an average efficiency of 19.7%. The uncleaned PV panels had the lowest efficiency of 16.4%. Though nanocoating provides an improvement in efficiency, coating in multiple layers (three or more) might lead to a slight increase in temperature as it may form sufficient mass to retain heat. Conclusively, proactive measures have been highlighted, with nanocoating considered to be one of them, and reactive measures, such as cleaning, have also been discussed. By reducing cleaning frequency, nanocoating could contribute to more sustainable and reliable energy generation from solar PV systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.T.C.; Methodology, G.T.C. and S.S.A.S.; Investigation, G.T.C. and S.S.A.S.; Resources, G.T.C., S.A.S. and X.C.; Writing—original draft, G.T.C.; Writing—review & editing, S.A.S. and X.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (MoHERI) Oman (MoHERI/BFP/ICEM/01/21).

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the International College of Engineering and Management (ICEM) for the support and facilities provided.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Asiedu, S.T.; Nyarko, F.K.A.; Boahen, S.; Effah, F.B.; Asaaga, B.A. Machine learning forecasting of solar PV production using single and hybrid models over different time horizons. Heliyon 2024, 10, e28898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rey-Costa, E.; Elliston, B.; Green, D.; Abramowitz, G. Firming 100% renewable power: Costs and opportunities in Australia’s National Electricity Market. Renew. Energy 2023, 219, 119416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Imam, A.A.; Abusorrah, A.; Marzband, M. Potentials and opportunities of solar PV and wind energy sources in Saudi Arabia: Land suitability, techno-socio-economic feasibility, and future variability. Results Eng. 2024, 21, 101785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zeb, K.; Uddin, W.; Khan, M.A.; Ali, Z.; Ali, M.U.; Christofides, N.; Kim, H.J. A comprehensive review on inverter topologies and control strategies for grid connected photovoltaic system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 1120–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Allouhi, A.; Rehman, S.; Buker, M.S.; Said, Z. Up-to-date literature review on Solar PV systems: Technology progress, market status and R&D. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khalid, H.M.; Rafique, Z.; Muyeen, S.M.; Raqeeb, A.; Said, Z.; Saidur, R.; Sopian, K. Dust accumulation and aggregation on PV panels: An integrated survey on impacts, mathematical models, cleaning mechanisms, and possible sustainable solution. Sol. Energy 2023, 251, 261–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chala, G.T.; Sulaiman, S.A.; Al Alshaikh, S.M. Effects of cooling and interval cleaning on the performance of soiled photovoltaic panels in Muscat, Oman. Results Eng. 2024, 21, 101933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Al-Doori, G.F.; Mahmood, R.A.; Al-Janabi, A.; Hassan, A.M.; Chala, G.T. Impact of Surface Temperature of a Photovoltaic Solar Panel on Voltage Production. In Energy and Environment in the Tropics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 81–93. [Google Scholar]
  9. Batool, I.; Shahzad, N.; Shahzad, R.; Naseem Satti, A.; Liaquat, R.; Waqas, A.; Imran Shahzad, M. Self-cleaning study of SiO2 modified TiO2 nanofibrous thin films prepared via electrospinning for application in solar cells. Sol. Energy 2024, 268, 112271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Müller, K.; Bugnicourt, E.; Latorre, M.; Jorda, M.; Echegoyen Sanz, Y.; Lagaron, J.M.; Miesbauer, O.; Bianchin, A.; Hankin, S.; Bölz, U.; et al. Review on the Processing and Properties of Polymer Nanocomposites and Nanocoatings and Their Applications in the Packaging, Automotive and Solar Energy Fields. Nanomaterials 2017, 7, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nguyen-Tri, P.; Tran, H.N.; Plamondon, C.O.; Tuduri, L.; Vo, D.-V.N.; Nanda, S.; Mishra, A.; Chao, H.-P.; Bajpai, A.K. Recent progress in the preparation, properties and applications of superhydrophobic nano-based coatings and surfaces: A review. Prog. Org. Coat. 2019, 132, 235–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boro, B.; Gogoi, B.; Rajbongshi, B.M.; Ramchiary, A. Nano-structured TiO2/ZnO nanocomposite for dye-sensitized solar cells application: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2264–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yadav, V.; Mishra, A. Role of nanocoating in maintaining solar PV efficiency: An overview. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2013, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mozumder, M.S.; Mourad, A.-H.I.; Pervez, H.; Surkatti, R.J.S.E.M.; Cells, S. Recent developments in multifunctional coatings for solar panel applications: A review. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2019, 189, 75–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vargas-Bernal, R. Nanocoatings for Energy Generation and Conservation of Solar Cells. In Sustainable Approach to Protective Nanocoatings; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2024; pp. 88–112. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bai, Y.; Zhang, H.; Shao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, J.J.C. Recent progresses of superhydrophobic coatings in different application fields: An overview. Coatings 2021, 11, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chala, G.T.; Al Alshaikh, S.M. Solar Photovoltaic Energy as a Promising Enhanced Share of Clean Energy Sources in the Future—A Comprehensive Review. Energies 2023, 16, 7919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Elsaadawi, Y.; Tayel, S.A.; El-Maaty, A.A.E.; Mostafa, E. Hydrophobic nanocoating impacts on the PV panels’ current-voltage and power-voltage curves. Al-Azhar J. Agric. Eng. 2023, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ehsan, R.M.; Simon, S.P.; Sundareswaran, K.; Kumar, K.A.; Sriharsha, T. Effect of Soiling on Photovoltaic Modules and Its Mitigation Using Hydrophobic Nanocoatings. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2021, 11, 742–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aldawoud, A.; Aldawoud, A.; Aryanfar, Y.; Assad, M.E.H.; Sharma, S.; Alayi, R. Reducing PV soiling and condensation using hydrophobic coating with brush and controllable curtains. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2022, 17, 919–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Al Bakri, H.; Abu Elhaija, W.; Al Zyoud, A. Solar photovoltaic panels performance improvement using active self-cleaning nanotechnology of SurfaShield G. Energy 2021, 223, 119908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abbood, A.M.; Abed, Q.A. Using the nano-composite coating technology to improve PV solar cell performance: A review. AIP Conf. Proc. 2023, 2776, 090001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ehsan, R.M.; Simon, S.P.; Kinattingal, S.; Kumar, K.A.; Sriharsha, T. Effects of nanocoatings on the temperature-dependent cell parameters and power generation of photovoltaic panels. Appl. Nanosci. 2022, 12, 3945–3962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Al-Badra, M.Z.; Abd-Elhady, M.S.; Kandil, H.A. A novel technique for cleaning PV panels using antistatic coating with a mechanical vibrator. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 1633–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chaturvedi, M.; Ramalingam, V. Dust Repellent Nano Coating for Operational Efficiency Enhancement of Solar Photovoltaic System. Appl. Sol. Energy 2022, 58, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Elnozahy, A.; Abd-Elbary, H.; Abo-Elyousr, F.K. Efficient energy harvesting from PV Panel with reinforced hydrophilic nano-materials for eco-buildings. Energy Built Environ. 2024, 5, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Aljdaeh, E.; Kamwa, I.; Hammad, W.; Abuashour, M.I.; Sweidan, T.e.; Khalid, H.M.; Muyeen, S. Performance enhancement of self-cleaning hydrophobic nanocoated photovoltaic panels in a dusty environment. Energies 2021, 14, 6800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fathi, M.; Abderrezek, M.; Friedrich, M. Reducing dust effects on photovoltaic panels by hydrophobic coating. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2017, 19, 577–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pedrazzi, S.; Allesina, G.; Muscio, A. Are Nano-Composite Coatings the Key for Photovoltaic Panel Self-Maintenance: An Experimental Evaluation. Energies 2018, 11, 3448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rakesh Tej Kumar, K.; Ramakrishna, M.; Durga Sukumar, G. A review on PV cells and nanocomposite-coated PV systems. Int. J. Energy Res. 2018, 42, 2305–2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Manju, B.; Bari, A.; Pavan, C. Automatic solar panel cleaning system. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Res. Eng. 2018, 4, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tayel, S.A.; Abu El-Maaty, A.E.; Mostafa, E.M.; Elsaadawi, Y.F. Enhance the performance of photovoltaic solar panels by a self-cleaning and hydrophobic nanocoating. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 21236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alamri, H.R.; Rezk, H.; Abd-Elbary, H.; Ziedan, H.A.; Elnozahy, A. Experimental investigation to improve the energy efficiency of solar PV panels using hydrophobic SiO2 nanomaterial. Coatings 2020, 10, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 17 02871 g001
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
Energies 17 02871 g001
Energies 17 02871 g002
Figure 2. A cleaning brush used to clean the PV panels.
Figure 2. A cleaning brush used to clean the PV panels.
Energies 17 02871 g002
Energies 17 02871 g003
Figure 3. Current profiles of nanocoated and cleaned PV panels.
Figure 3. Current profiles of nanocoated and cleaned PV panels.
Energies 17 02871 g003
Energies 17 02871 g004
Figure 4. Comparison between the voltage of nanocoated PV panels with cleaned and uncleaned panels.
Figure 4. Comparison between the voltage of nanocoated PV panels with cleaned and uncleaned panels.
Energies 17 02871 g004
Energies 17 02871 g005
Figure 5. Comparison between the power of nanocoated PV panels and regular PV panels.
Figure 5. Comparison between the power of nanocoated PV panels and regular PV panels.
Energies 17 02871 g005
Energies 17 02871 g006
Figure 6. Efficiency of nanocoated, cleaned, and uncleaned PV panels.
Figure 6. Efficiency of nanocoated, cleaned, and uncleaned PV panels.
Energies 17 02871 g006
Energies 17 02871 g007
Figure 7. Effects of first layer coating: (a) solar irradiance of the day and (b) surface temperature of PV panel.
Figure 7. Effects of first layer coating: (a) solar irradiance of the day and (b) surface temperature of PV panel.
Energies 17 02871 g007
Energies 17 02871 g008
Figure 8. Effects of double-layer coating: (a) solar irradiance of the day and (b) surface temperature of PV panel.
Figure 8. Effects of double-layer coating: (a) solar irradiance of the day and (b) surface temperature of PV panel.
Energies 17 02871 g008
Energies 17 02871 g009aEnergies 17 02871 g009b
Figure 9. Effects of third layer coating: (a) solar irradiance of the day, (b) temperature profile, and (c) voltage profile.
Figure 9. Effects of third layer coating: (a) solar irradiance of the day, (b) temperature profile, and (c) voltage profile.
Energies 17 02871 g009aEnergies 17 02871 g009b
Energies 17 02871 g010aEnergies 17 02871 g010b
Figure 10. Effects of fourth layer coating: (a) solar irradiance of the day, (b) temperature profile, and (c) voltage profile.
Figure 10. Effects of fourth layer coating: (a) solar irradiance of the day, (b) temperature profile, and (c) voltage profile.
Energies 17 02871 g010aEnergies 17 02871 g010b
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chala, G.T.; Sulaiman, S.A.; Chen, X.; Al Shamsi, S.S. Effects of Nanocoating on the Performance of Photovoltaic Solar Panels in Al Seeb, Oman. Energies 2024, 17, 2871. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17122871

AMA Style

Chala GT, Sulaiman SA, Chen X, Al Shamsi SS. Effects of Nanocoating on the Performance of Photovoltaic Solar Panels in Al Seeb, Oman. Energies. 2024; 17(12):2871. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17122871

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chala, Girma T., Shaharin A. Sulaiman, Xuecheng Chen, and Salim S. Al Shamsi. 2024. "Effects of Nanocoating on the Performance of Photovoltaic Solar Panels in Al Seeb, Oman" Energies 17, no. 12: 2871. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17122871

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop