sustainability

Article
Design, Modelling and Optimization of a Novel Concentrated
Solar Powered (CSP) Flash Desalination System Involving
Direct Heating and Pressure Modulation Using Response
Surface Methodology (RSM)
Faizan Ahmed 1,2 , Mohd Sharizal Abdul Aziz 1, * , Mohd Remy Rozainy Mohd Arif Zainol 3, *, Khor Chu Yee 4 ,
Feroz Shaik 2 , Dewi Suriyani Che Halin 5 , Mohd Arif Anuar Mohd Salleh 5 and Marwan Kheimi 6

1 School of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia,

Nibong Tebal 14300, Seberang Perai Selatan, Penang, Malaysia
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University,
Al Khobar 31952, Saudi Arabia
3 School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Nibong Tebal 14300, Seberang Perai Selatan, Penang, Malaysia
4 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering & Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP),
Arau 02600, Perlis, Malaysia
5 Faculty of Chemical Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP),
Arau 02600, Perlis, Malaysia
6 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering-Rabigh Branch, King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
Citation: Ahmed, F.; Abdul Aziz, * Correspondence: msharizal@usm.my (M.S.A.A.); ceremy@usm.my (M.R.R.M.A.Z.)
M.S.; Mohd Arif Zainol, M.R.R.; Yee,
K.C.; Shaik, F.; Che Halin, D.S.; Mohd
Abstract: The main problem with existing desalination technologies is that they consume high input
Salleh, M.A.A.; Kheimi, M. Design,
energy to generate fresh water. Secondly, this energy demand is usually met by conventional sources
Modelling and Optimization of a
of energy such as fossil fuels. With limited conventional energy reserves predicted for the future, the
Novel Concentrated Solar Powered
focus is on the utilization of renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy
(CSP) Flash Desalination System
Involving Direct Heating and
for powering desalination systems. Such a transformation would make the desalination systems
Pressure Modulation Using Response more energy efficient, sustainable, and economical. In this paper, a novel concentrated solar powered
Surface Methodology (RSM). (CSP) flash desalination system with direct heating and pressure modulation is presented. A lab-scale
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558. prototype was designed, manufactured, and tested for feed water collected from the Arabian Sea
https://doi.org/10.3390/ and in climatic conditions of Al-Khobar city in Saudi Arabia. The effect of three process parameters,
su141811558 namely, feed water temperature (30–40 ◦ C), feed water flow rate (0.003–0.006 kg/s), and vacuum
Academic Editor: Ramchandra Pode
pressure (0.1–0.3 bar) on distillate production, was investigated. System modelling and optimization
were done using Design Expert software and Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The central
Received: 26 July 2022 composite design technique was employed for the optimization of process parameters. The adequacy
Accepted: 8 September 2022
of the developed distillate production model was verified by ANOVA. The optimum values of feed
Published: 15 September 2022
water temperature, flow rate, and vacuum pressure are reported to be 40 ◦ C, 0.005 kg/s, and 0.1 bar,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral respectively, resulting in distillate production of 0.001 kg/s.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- Keywords: concentrated solar power; single stage; flash desalination; response surface
iations. methodology; optimization

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

1. Introduction
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article Solar desalination systems based on the flashing technique operate on the principle
distributed under the terms and of quick vaporization resulting from the condition when a liquid is brought under its
conditions of the Creative Commons saturation pressure [1]. These systems have been extensively utilized for desalination due
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// to their high evaporation rates [2]. They have also been used for other applications related
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ to refrigeration [3] and dehumidification [4]. As such, these systems involve the use of the
4.0/). non-renewable source of energy for their operation. Hence, researchers’ focus has shifted

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811558 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 2 of 14

towards integrating renewable energy sources such as solar energy in these systems [5,6].
However, some problems are associated with using solar energy for these systems. These
issues include low radiation conditions and intermittent supply of radiation which affects
the evaporation rate and subsequently the system’s output. This leads to difficulties in
practically implementing these renewable energy-based systems [7].
One approach to overcome such issues is combining the system with a thermal energy
storage facility. To this extent, Miyatake et al. [8] investigated the performance of a flash
evaporation system integrated with a latent heat storage facility. They reported an enhance-
ment in efficiency by 95% for the system with a thermal heat storage feature. Similarly,
Lai et al. [9] experimented with a reverse osmosis system based on solar energy with a
thermal energy storage feature. They tested the setup for moderate working conditions and
concluded that the system’s efficiency augments by 9%. Another design configuration was
explored by Ghorbani et al. [10]. They tested a multi-stage flashing system integrated with
a solar collector. Further, a phase change material was also employed for thermal energy
storage. It was reported that the phase change material could substantially enhance the
heat storage capability of the system.
Another approach to enhancing the system performance when operated with non-
renewable energy sources is by improving the design of the flash vaporization segments.
In this aspect, the scholars are focusing on improvements in heat transfer and designing
simple systems such as single-stage flash evaporation systems. For example, Gao et al. [11]
investigated the performance of a flashing system using a visualization unit. They studied
the effect of vacuum on the boiling characteristics inside a water droplet. Another study
was conducted by Ji et al. [12], wherein the spray flashing was done at high pressure and
high temperature. They concluded that the flashing condition significantly affects the
bubble formation process and its growth. In another study, Muthunayagam et al. [13]
investigated the temperature changes of water droplets during and after the spraying and
developed a vapor model. From these studies, it can be interpreted that the main factors
affecting the spraying process and the system performance are heat flux, operating pressure,
and superheat temperature of the spray liquid. Furthermore, optimizing the design and
operation of such a system is also essential for enhanced performance.
To this extent, Ikegami et al. [14] reported that an upward jet produces higher efficiency
than a downward jet due to an increase in the water droplet flash path. However, in another
study [15], it was reported that irrespective of whether the water jet flow is in the upward or
downward stream, the system’s efficiency increases with an increase in flow rate. However,
at the same time, a decrease in flash efficiency was also observed.
The recent focus by many scholars has been on the utilization of nanoparticles in
spray liquid. The main aim of suspending nanoparticles in spraying liquid is to increase
the heat and mass transfer capabilities of the working fluid. Peng et al. [16] carried out
an experimental investigation with Al2 O3 nanofluid. The system’s flash efficiency was
enhanced due to the higher heat transfer capability of Al2 O3 nanofluid. In another study,
Guo et al. [17] numerically investigated the idea of micro encapsulating the water droplet
with phase change material. It was reported that the microencapsulated water droplet
significantly increased the evaporation rate. Numerous research studies were performed on
this microencapsulation concept [18–20], and it was observed that the microencapsulated
water droplet had higher thermal energy transfer. The use of the microencapsulated phase
change material also resulted in performance improvement, as reported by Chen et al. [21].
In recent studies by Moharram et al. [22] and Gnaifaid et al. [23], the concept of simultaneous
desalination and power generation using concentrated solar power was explored. The
concentrated solar power technique was reported to be the future research direction.
In the previous studies, it has been observed that the enhancement in spray-type
solar desalination systems is mainly by adding a thermal energy storage facility and im-
provement in the design of the flash chamber. Some studies also report the utilization
of nanofluids, phase change material, and microencapsulation of water droplets for effi-
ciency augmentation. However, in cases where the solar energy supply is intermittent
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 3 of 14

or inadequate, the temperature of the spraying liquid is dropped, resulting in a drop in

system performance. Hence, this paper proposes a novel concentrating solar power-based
flash desalination system with direct heating and pressure modulation. The effect of pro-
cess parameters such as feed water temperature, flow rate, and vacuum pressure was
investigated experimentally. Further, system modelling and optimization were done by Re-
sponse Surface Methodology using Design Expert software. Figure 1 presents a schematic
representation of modelling and optimization patterns for distillate production.

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of design, modelling, and optimization paradigm of the

proposed system.

2. Experiments
2.1. Materials and Method
The front view of the experimental apparatus is shown in Figure 2, whereas Figure 3
shows the back side view of the setup. Figure 4 presents the schematic of the apparatus
along with the process flow directions. As seen in these figures, the main components
of the setup include a feed water tank, pump with variable frequency drive, rotameter,
pressure gauges, condenser, heat exchanger, concentrator plate, temperature sensors, flash
chamber, nozzle, brine disposal tank, distillate tank, vacuum pump, and parabolic dish.
The dimensions of these components are listed in Table 1. The material used for the base
board was wood, whereas stainless steel was used for the condenser, heat exchanger, flash
chamber, and connecting pipes. The feed water tank, brine disposal tank, and distillate
collection tank were made of glass. The parabolic dish was of steel with an inner surface
fitted with reflective mirrors to reflect solar radiation. Although the experimental runs
were carried out with the most care, some uncertainty in measurements resulting from the
measuring tools always exists. The various tools used for measurement, along with their
range and uncertainties, are listed in Table 2.

Table 1. Components and their dimensions.

Dimensions/Specifications
S. No Component
(L = Length, B = Breadth, H = Height)
1 Base board 1.5 × 0.5 × 1.5 m (L × B × H)
2 Heat exchanger 0.05 × 0.05 × 0.1 m (L × B × H)
3 Flash chamber 0.1 × 0.1 × 0.2 m (L × B × H)
4 Condenser 0.05 × 0.05 × 0.10 m (L × B × H)
colo5 Pipes 0.006 m
6 Nozzle 0.002 m
7 Water tanks 0.005 m3
8 Water pump 368 W
9 Parabolic dish Radius = 0.28 m, depth = 0.04 m
10 Copper plate Diameter = 0.05 m

Table 2. Measuring tools and their uncertainty.

S. No Parameter Instrument Range Uncertainty

1 Flow rate Rotameter 0.003 to 0.06 kg/s ±1.25%
2 Temperature Type-K thermocouple −50 to 1000 ◦ C ±1.25%
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 4 of 14

Figure 2. Front view of experimental apparatus.

Figure 3. Back view of experimental apparatus.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 5 of 14

Figure 4. Schematic of the experimental setup.

Feed water was collected from the coastal sea of Al Khobar city in the eastern province
of Saudi Arabia. It was then loaded into the feed water tank of the experimental setup.
Each experiment was carried out for one hour to measure the distillate output per hour.
The pump moves the feed water through the condenser coil and into the heat exchanger.
The water picks up the heat while moving through the condenser coil and enters the heat
exchanger. A copper plate is attached to the wall of this heat exchanger. In addition,
a parabolic dish is used to reflect and concentrate the solar radiation onto this copper
plate. As the feed water moves into and through this heat exchanger, it gets further heated
due to the concentrated radiation falling on the heat exchanger wall. The heated feed
water is then sprayed into a flash chamber utilizing a nozzle. The vapors generated in the
flashing chamber are forced to move towards the condenser by applying vacuum pressure
in the condenser. The vapors are then condensed onto the condenser coil and are collected
separately in the distillate tank as the output. Brine solution accumulated at the bottom of
the flash chamber is also collected in a separate brine collection tank.

2.2. Experiment Design Using RSM

The Response Surface Methodology approach has been preferred and utilized by
many scientists [24–28] to optimise various systems. Hence, in this study, Response Surface
Methodology was utilized for designing the experiments and developing a model to
evaluate the influence of three independent process parameters (A: feed water temperature,
B: flow rate, C: vacuum pressure) on the response (R: distillate). These three process
parameters can significantly affect the output of the system. They can influence the heating
and cooling processes in the boiler and the condenser heat exchanger, ultimately affecting
the system’s output. Hence, they are chosen for this study. Additionally, the main objective
of this experimental setup is to obtain distilled water. Hence, the amount of distillate
collected is chosen as the response. A central composite design (CCD) technique was
employed. This technique was based on eight factorial points, six axial points, and six
replicate points at the center. The process parameters were varied at three levels (−1, 0, 1).
The number of experimental tests was calculated using Equation (1).

N = 2K + 2K + C (1)

where N is the experimental trials to be conducted, K is the number of independent variables

to be examined, and C is the number of tests to be done for the central points. The limits
for each factor are shown in Table 3. The limits for these parameters are chosen based on
experimental capability and existing weather conditions. For example, the vacuum pump
could provide the above ranges of vacuum pressure. Similarly, for most of the year in this
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 6 of 14

region, the average ambient temperature is in the range of 30–40 ◦ C. Hence, the feed water
temperature is tested for this condition. The matrix for experimental data was determined
using Design Expert software version 13.0.5, Statease, Minneapolis. The subsequent model
obtained was analyzed using ANOVA.

Table 3. Independent variables and their range with coded levels.

Independent Coded Levels (Range)

Variable −1 0 +1
Flow rate (kg/s) 0.003 0.0045 0.006
Feed water
30 35 40
temperature (◦ C)
Vacuum pressure (Pa) 0.1 0.2 0.3

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Model Development for Distillate Production
Response Surface Methodology was used to investigate the interactivity of three
parameters, namely, feed water temperature, flow rate, and vacuum pressure on distillate
production. The design of the experiments and obtained responses are shown in Table 4.
A maximum response of 0.001 kg/s was obtained at a feed water temperature of 40 ◦ C, a
flow rate of 0.005 kg/s, and a vacuum pressure of 0.1 bar. Likewise, a minimum response
of 0.0004 kg/s was obtained at a feed water temperature of 30 ◦ C, a flow rate of 0.003 kg/s,
and a vacuum pressure of 0.3 bar. The results show that an increase in vacuum pressure
resulted in a decrease in distillate production. Vacuum pressure across the condenser
enables the movement of vapors from the flash chamber into the condenser. However,
some vapor molecules are thrown out into the atmosphere with higher vacuum pressures
even before being condensed. This situation results in a drop in distillate production.
This behavior is synchronous with Mohammadi et al. [29], where the distillate production
decreases with an increase in vacuum pressure. The following model (Equation (2)) in
terms of coded levels is developed based on the results obtained:

Distillate = 3010 + 550A + 240B − 210C + 62.5AB + 62.5AC − 450B2 (2)

where in A, B, and C are coded values for three selected parameters, namely, feed water
temperature, flow rate, and vacuum pressure, respectively. The ANOVA for the polynomial
equation and the corresponding regression coefficients for distillate production is listed
in Table 5. The significance of the developed model can be established from the F-value,
p-value, correlation of determination (R2 ) value, and results from the lack of fit test. The
model was identified to be significant as the model F-value is 150.84. A specific model term
is insignificant if that factor has a p-value greater than 0.05. In the present analysis, the
significant model terms are identified as A, B, C, AB, AC, and B2 . The model terms are
considered insignificant for p-values higher than 0.05. The F-value of 0.75 for the lack of fit
test means that this lack of fit is non-significant compared to the pure error. It is preferred to
have non-significance in lack of fit as this will lead to a good fit of the model. The predicted
R2 value of 0.96 agrees with the adjusted R2 value of 0.97. The ratio of standard deviation
to mean is referred to as the Coefficient of Variance (CV). The obtained CV value is 2.7%. A
model is considered reproducible if the CV value is less than 10. The signal-to-noise ratio is
called Adequate Precision (AP). It is desirable to have an AP ratio bigger than 4. In this
analysis, an AP ratio of 44.95 was attained, indicating an adequate signal; hence, the model
can be utilized for navigation of design space.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 7 of 14

Table 4. Experiment design for distillate production.

Independent Variables Responses

Run Feed-Water Vacuum Distillate CCD Position
Temperature, A Flow Rate, B Pressure, C Production
kg/s
1 35 0.006 0.2 0.00077 Axial
2 30 0.0045 0.2 0.00069 Axial
3 35 0.0045 0.2 0.00080 Center
4 30 0.003 0.1 0.00058 Factorial
5 35 0.0045 0.2 0.00081 Center
6 30 0.006 0.3 0.00052 Factorial
7 35 0.003 0.2 0.00063 Axial
8 40 0.006 0.1 0.00097 Factorial
9 35 0.0045 0.2 0.00080 Center
10 35 0.0045 0.3 0.00077 Axial
11 35 0.0045 0.1 0.00088 Axial
12 35 0.0045 0.2 0.00086 Center
13 35 0.0045 0.2 0.00083 Center
14 35 0.0045 0.2 0.00084 Center
15 30 0.003 0.3 0.00044 Factorial
16 40 0.006 0.3 0.00091 Factorial
17 40 0.005 0.2 0.001 Axial
18 40 0.003 0.3 0.00072 Factorial
19 40 0.003 0.1 0.00083 Factorial
20 30 0.006 0.1 0.00069 Factorial

Table 5. Analysis of variance for the distillate production model.

Sum of Mean
Response Source df F-Value p-Value Remarks
Squares Square
Model 5.117 × 106 6 8.528 × 105 150.84 <0.0001
A: Feed-water
3.025 × 106 1 3.025 × 106 535.03 <0.0001 SD = 75.19
temperature
Mean = 2785
B: Flow rate 5.760 × 105 1 5.760 × 105 101.88 <0.0001
CV = 2.7
C: Vacuum pressure 4.410 × 105 1 4.410 × 105 78 <0.0001 R2 = 0.98
Distillate
AB 31,250.00 1 31,250.00 5.53 0.0352 R2 (adj) = 0.97
AC 31,250.00 1 31,250.00 5.53 0.0352
R2 (pred) = 0.96
B2 6.264 × 105 1 6.264 × 105 108.56 <0.0001
AP = 44.95
Residual 73,500 13 5653.85 - -
Lack of Fit 40,166.67 8 5020.83 0.7531 0.6571
Pure Error 33,333.33 5 6666.67 - -

3.2. Effect of Independent Variables on Distillate Production

A perturbation plot is typically used to examine the sensitivity of the factors (A, B,
and C) to the response (distillate) in response surface methodology. The most significant
factors are determined according to the most considerable changes in factors from low
(−1) to high (1) levels. The perturbation plot between the inputs and the response is
illustrated in Figure 5. The perturbation plot indicated that the two most significant factors
contributing to the response were feed water temperature and flow rate. The response
(distillate production) increased linearly with feed water temperature augmentation for
the tested limits. In the case of flow rate, the distillate production increased with the
flow rate up to a certain level, after which a drop in distillate collection was noticed. In
the case of vacuum pressure, the distillate production decreased with an increment in
vacuum pressure. From ANOVA, it was observed that the term BC is insignificant due to
the high p-value. Hence, the combined effect of BC is not included in subsequent analysis
and discussion.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 8 of 14

Figure 5. Perturbation plot between the inputs and response for specified limits.

The interaction and effect of independent variables, namely feed water temperature,
flow rate, and vacuum pressure on distillate as the response is illustrated below in three-
dimensional surface plots. The interaction between feed water temperature and flow rate is
shown in Figure 6 and is found to be significant in distillate production. It is observed that
an increase in feed water temperature increased distillate production. This is because for
higher feed water temperatures, the fluid gets further heated in the boiler heat exchanger
to greater temperatures before spraying into the flashing chamber. Higher feed water
temperatures while spraying are always desirable as they lead to proper and effective
fluid vaporization after spraying. These vapors move into the condenser to condense,
ultimately increasing the distillate production. It can also be observed that as the feed
water flow rate increased from 0.003 to 0.0045 kg/s, the distillate production also increased.
However, a further increase in flow rate resulted in a decrease in output. This is due to
the reason that for higher flow rates, the feed water travels quicker through the boiler heat
exchanger, leading to a smaller temperature gradient across the boiler heat exchanger. This
low temperature gradient impacts the spraying process and vaporization and leads to more
brine collection compared to the distillate. This behavior is synchronous with the findings
of Alrowais et al. [30], where the distillate production is found to increase up to a certain
maximum with an increase in flow rate, after which there is some drop in the output.

Figure 6. 3-D surface plot of the combined effect of feed water temperature and flow rate.

The interaction between feed water temperature and vacuum pressure is shown in
Figure 7 and is significant for distillate production. It is observed that an increase in
feed water temperature increased distillate production. However, an increase in vacuum
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 9 of 14

pressure resulted in a decrease in the output. This behavior is synchronous with Lovineh
et al. [31], where the distillate production decreases with an increase in vacuum pressure.

Figure 7. 3-D surface plot of the combined effect of feed water temperature and vacuum pressure.

Figure 8 shows the cube with distillate production at each factorial point. The cube plot
indicates the reaction of feed water temperature (A), flow rate (B), and vacuum pressure
(C) interact to affect the response. Because the model (Equation (2)) has the interaction
term of AB and AC, the effects on the response are different when the variables are at their
high levels. The diagnostic plot of the Box-Cox power transform is shown in Figure 9. The
Box-Cox power transform is used to determine the requirement of model transformation.
The curve’s minimum point shows that the lambda value falls within 0 and 1, and no
transformation was needed in the present condition. The diagnostic plot of actual versus
predicted values of distillate production is illustrated in Figure 10. The points are closed
to the diagonal line. It can be observed that there is a good fit between the experimental
and model predicted values. This result also indicated that the model could predict well,
and the predicted value is close to the actual value. The optimum experimental values
and model predicted values are shown in Table 6. The maximum distillate production was
predicted to be 0.00104 kg/s. Verification experiments were performed at the optimum
values of process parameters, and the distillate production was found to be 0.00102 kg/s.
The findings were in good agreement with the predicted values, indicating the developed
model’s accuracy.

Figure 8. Cube plot of distillate production at each factorial point.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 10 of 14

Figure 9. The diagnostic plot of Box-Cox for power transforms.

Figure 10. The diagnostic plot of actual versus predicted values for distillate production.

Table 6. Optimum experimental and model predicted values of distillate production.

Vacuum Distillate Production

Feed-Water Flow Rate (kg/s × 10−3 /3600)
Temperature (kg/s) Pressure Desirability Error %
(◦ C) (Bar) Experimental Predicted
40 0.005 0.1 3700 3758 0.95 1.5

4. Energy and Exergy Analysis

For analyzing the performance of a system, modelling is done by means of carrying out
energy and exergy analysis. The energy and exergy analysis of the concentrator plate heat
exchanger is done for the optimal conditions and illustrated in the following sub-sections.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 11 of 14

4.1. Energy Analysis

Some general assumptions are made in this analysis, considering steady flow condi-
tions, the reflector and concentrator plate surfaces to be free of dirt, and clear
weather conditions.
The amount of heat absorbed by the feed water across the concentrator plate heat
exchanger can be computed from the general Equation:

Q ab = mC p ( To − Ti ) (3)

where:
m is mass flow rate, kg/sCp is specific heat, J/kg K
To is fluid exit temperature, K
Ti is fluid inlet temperature, K
The amount of solar radiation incident on the concentrator plate heat exchanger can
be written as described by Malik et al. [32]:

Qi = It A (4)

where:
Qi is the amount of heat incident on concentrator plate heat exchanger, W
It is the total solar intensity incident on the heat exchanger, W/m2
A is the effective surface area of concentrator plate heat exchanger, m2
There will also be some heat loss taking place from the surface of the concentrator plate
heat exchanger to the surroundings resulting from the temperature difference between the
heat exchanger surface and surroundings. This heat loss is computed as:

Q L = UL A( Tc − Ta ) (5)

where:
QL is heat loss from heat exchanger surface to surroundings, W
UL is the overall loss coefficient for heat exchanger, W/m2 ·K
Tc is the average temperature of heat exchange surface, K
Ta is ambient air temperature, K
The net heat absorbed that is available on the concentrator plate heat exchanger is
calculated as the difference between the incident heat and the heat loss to the surroundings.

Qnet = It A − UL A( Tc − Ta ) (6)

where:
Qnet is the net heat input on the concentrator plate heat exchanger, W
The energy efficiency of the concentrator plate heat exchanger (EN-CPHE) is the ratio
of useful energy to the total energy.

Q ab
ηEN − CPHE = (7)
Qnet

4.2. Exergy Analysis of Concentrator Plate Heat Exchanger

Exergy is destroyed as the solar energy is converted to thermal energy inside the
concentrator plate heat exchanger. The exergy is computed as described by Gomri [33].

Exergy destroyed = Total exergy−exergy transferred to the fluid

. . .
Xdes = XT − XU (8)
  !
. Te Te
Xdes = IA 1 − − ηEN − CPHE Q ab 1 − (9)
Ts Tf m
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 12 of 14

where:
Te is environment temperature, K
Ts is sun temperature, 5800 K
Tfm is the mean fluid temperature for the heat exchanger
The exergy efficiency of the concentrator plate heat exchanger (EX-CPHE) is the ratio
of useful exergy to total exergy.
.
XU
ηEX − CPHE = . (10)
XT

From the above analysis, the energy efficiency was found to be 58%, and the exergy
efficiency was 1.03%. A similar analysis is reported in the work of Sutanto et al. [34] and
Mirmanto et al. [35], which are referred while carrying out this analysis.

5. Conclusions
In the present study, experiments were performed to obtain distilled water using the
coastal seawater of Al-Khobar city in Saudi Arabia as a feed water source. The effect of three
process parameters, namely feed water temperature, flow rate, and vacuum pressure, was
studied. Additionally, RSM was applied to determine the optimum feed water temperature,
flow rate, and vacuum pressure values for maximizing the response. The system exhibited
optimum performance at a feed water temperature of 40 ◦ C, a flow rate of 0.005 kg/s, and
a vacuum pressure of 0.1 bar. For these conditions, an optimum distillate production of
0.001 kg/s was achieved. The developed distillate model predicted the system performance
reasonably well, with an error of less than 5%. The current findings help the researcher
identify the most significant factor and optimize distillate production.

Author Contributions: F.A. and M.S.A.A. wrote the original draft of the manuscript; M.R.R.M.A.Z.,
K.C.Y., F.S., D.S.C.H., M.A.A.M.S. and M.K. edited the manuscript, data curation, validation, and
prepared the technical aspects of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia under Fundamen-
tal Research Grant Scheme with Project Code FRGS/1/2021/TK0/USM/02/17.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: Acknowledgement to School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Risse, B.; Spitzer, D.; Hassler, D.; Schnell, F.; Comet, M.; Pichot, V.; Muhr, H. Continuous formation of submicron energetic
particles by the flash-evaporation technique. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 203, 158–165. [CrossRef]
2. Lv, H.; Wang, Y.; Wu, L.; Hu, Y. Numerical simulation and optimization of the flash chamber for multi-stage flash seawater
desalination. Desalination 2019, 465, 69–78. [CrossRef]
3. Cheng, W.; Zhang, W.; Cheng, H.; Hu, L. Spray cooling and flash evaporation cooling: The current development and application.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 614–628. [CrossRef]
4. Gandhidasan, P. Quick performance prediction of liquid desiccant regeneration in a packed bed. Sol. Energy 2005, 79, 47–55.
[CrossRef]
5. Ezzat, A.W.; Hu, E.; Al-Najjar, H.M.T.; Zhao, Z.; Shu, X. Investigation of steam jet flash evaporation with solar thermal collectors
in water desalination systems. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2020, 20, 100710. [CrossRef]
6. Chen, L.X.; Hu, P.; Sheng, C.C.; Zhang, N.; Na Xie, M.; Wang, F.X. Thermodynamic analysis of three ejector based organic flash
cycles for low grade waste heat recovery. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 185, 384–395. [CrossRef]
7. Lin, S.; Zhao, H.; Zhu, L.; He, T.; Chen, S.; Gao, C.; Zhang, L. Seawater desalination technology and engineering in China: A
review. Desalination 2021, 498, 114728. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 13 of 14

8. Miyatake, O.; Koito, Y.; Tagawa, K.; Maruta, Y. Transient characteristics and performance of a novel desalination system based on
heat storage and spray flashing. Desalination 2001, 137, 157–166. [CrossRef]
9. Lai, X.; Long, R.; Liu, Z.; Liu, W. Solar energy powered high-recovery reverse osmosis for synchronous seawater desalination and
energy storage. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 228, 113665. [CrossRef]
10. Ghorbani, B.; Mehrpooya, M.; Dadak, A. Thermo-economic analysis of a solar-driven multi-stage desalination unit equipped
with a phase change material storage system to provide heating and fresh water for a residential complex. J. Energy Storage 2020,
30, 101555. [CrossRef]
11. Gao, W.; Qi, J.; Zhang, J.; Chen, G.; Wu, D. An experimental study on explosive boiling of superheated droplets in vacuum spray
flash evaporation. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 144, 118552. [CrossRef]
12. Ji, C.; Cheng, L.; Wang, N.; Liu, Z. Experimental investigation on high-pressure high-temperature spray flash evaporation and the
characteristic Jakob number. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2019, 102, 94–100. [CrossRef]
13. Muthunayagam, A.; Ramamurthi, K.; Paden, J. Low temperature flash vaporization for desalination. Desalination 2005, 180, 25–32.
[CrossRef]
14. Ikegami, Y.; Sasaki, H.; Gouda, T.; Uehara, H. Experimental study on a spray flash desalination (influence of the direction of
injection). Desalination 2006, 194, 81–89. [CrossRef]
15. Fathinia, F.; Al-Abdeli, Y.M.; Khiadani, M. Evaporation rates and temperature distributions in fine droplet flash evaporation
sprays. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2019, 145, 106037. [CrossRef]
16. Peng, Y.; Cheng, W. Experimental investigation on the effect of heat transfer enhancement of vacuum spray flash evaporation
cooling using Al2 O3 –water nanofluid. Energy Procedia 2017, 142, 3766–3773. [CrossRef]
17. Guo, Y.; Ma, H.; Fu, B.; Ji, Y.; Su, F.; Wilson, C. Heat Transfer Analysis of Flash Evaporation with MEPCM. J. Thermal Sci. Eng.
Appl. 2019, 11, 051016. [CrossRef]
18. Jurkowska, M.; Szczygieł, I. Review on properties of microencapsulated phase change materials slurries (mPCMS). Appl. Therm.
Eng. 2016, 98, 365–373. [CrossRef]
19. Ali, S.; Mustafa, M. Barriers facing Micro-encapsulated Phase Change Materials Slurry (MPCMS) in Photovoltaic Thermal (PV/T)
application. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 565–570. [CrossRef]
20. Yu, Q.; Romagnoli, A.; Yang, R.; Xie, D.; Liu, C.; Ding, Y.; Li, Y. Numerical study on energy and exergy performances of a
microencapsulated phase change material slurry based photovoltaic/thermal module. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 183, 708–720.
[CrossRef]
21. Chen, Q.; Xu, G.; Xia, P. The performance of a solar-driven spray flash evaporation desalination system enhanced by microencap-
sulated phase change material. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2021, 27, 101267. [CrossRef]
22. Moharram, N.A.; Bayoumi, S.; Hanafy, A.A.; El-Maghlany, W.M. Hybrid desalination and power generation plant utilizing
multi-stage flash and reverse osmosis driven by parabolic trough collectors. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2021, 23, 100807. [CrossRef]
23. Gnaifaid, H.; Ozcan, H. Multi-objective optimization of a concentrated solar energy driven trigeneration plant with thermal
energy storage: A case study for Turkey. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2020, 20, 100642. [CrossRef]
24. Aziz, M.A.; Abdullah, M.; Khor, C.; Azid, I. Optimization of pin through hole connector in thermal fluid–structure interaction
analysis of wave soldering process using response surface methodology. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2015, 57, 45–57. [CrossRef]
25. Ishak, M.H.H.; Ismail, F.; Aziz, M.S.A.; Abdullah, M.Z.; Abas, A. Optimization of 3D IC stacking chip on molded encapsulation
process: A response surface methodology approach. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 103, 1139–1153. [CrossRef]
26. Lim, C.H.; Abdullah, M.Z.; Aziz, I.A.; Khor, C.Y.; Aziz, M.S.A. Optimization of flexible printed circuit board’s cooling with air
flow and thermal effects using response surface methodology. Microelectron. Int. 2021, 38, 182–205. [CrossRef]
27. Joy, V.M.; Feroz, S.; Dutta, S. Solar nanophotocatalytic pretreatment of seawater: Process optimization and performance evaluation
using response surface methodology and genetic algorithm. Appl. Water Sci. 2021, 11, 18. [CrossRef]
28. Salih, F.Y.M.; Sakhile, K.; Shaik, F.; Lakkimsetty, N.R. Treatment of petroleum wastewater using synthesised haematite (α-Fe2 O3 )
photocatalyst and optimisation with response surface methodology. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2020, 1–20. [CrossRef]
29. Mohammadi, T.; Safavi, M. Application of Taguchi method in optimization of desalination by vacuum membrane distillation.
Desalination 2009, 249, 83–89. [CrossRef]
30. Alrowais, R.; Qian, C.; Burhan, M.; Ybyraiymkul, D.; Shahzad, M.W.; Ng, K.C. A greener seawater desalination method by
direct-contact spray evaporation and condensation (DCSEC): Experiments. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2020, 179, 115629. [CrossRef]
31. Lovineh, S.; Asghari, M.; Rajaei, B. Numerical simulation and theoretical study on simultaneous effects of operating parameters
in vacuum membrane distillation. Desalination 2013, 314, 59–66. [CrossRef]
32. Malik, A.; Qureshi, S.R.; Abbas, N.; Zaidi, A.A. Energy and exergy analyses of a solar desalination plant for Karachi Pakistan.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 2020, 37, 100596. [CrossRef]
33. Gomri, R. Energy and exergy analyses of seawater desalination system integrated in a solar heat transformer. Desalination 2009,
249, 188–196. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11558 14 of 14

34. Bayu, S.; Yuli, S.I.; Agung, T.W.; Hector, I. Enhancing the performance of floating photo-voltaic system by using thermosiphon
cooling method: Numerical and experimental analyses. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2022, 180, 107727.
35. Mirmanto; Sayoga, I.M.A.; Wijayanta, A.T.; Sasmito, A.P.; Aziz, M. Enhancement of Continuous-Feed Low-Cost Solar Distiller:
Effects of Various Fin Designs. Energy 2021, 14, 4844. [CrossRef]