sustainability

Article
Investigation on the Urban Grey Water Treatment Using a
Cost-Effective Solar Distillation Still
Mohd Fazly Yusof 1 , Mohd Remy Rozainy Mohd Arif Zainol 1,2, *, Ali Riahi 1, *, Nor Azazi Zakaria 1, *,
Syafiq Shaharuddin 1 , Siti Fairuz Juiani 1 , Norazian Mohamed Noor 3 , Mohd Hafiz Zawawi 4
and Jazaul Ikhsan 5

1 River Engineering and Urban Drainage Research Centre (REDAC), Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Nibong Tebal 14300, Malaysia; [email protected] (M.F.Y.); [email protected] (S.S.);
[email protected] (S.F.J.)
2 School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Nibong Tebal 14300, Malaysia
3 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Arau 01000, Malaysia;
[email protected]
4 Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang 43000, Malaysia; [email protected]
5 Department of Civil Engineering, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta 55183, Indonesia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (M.R.R.M.A.Z.); [email protected] (A.R.); [email protected] (N.A.Z.)

Abstract: Treating urban grey water with physical, chemical, and biological treatment techniques
and reusing it as a sustainable non-potable water source has received much attention recently, yet
there is a lack of studies regarding it. In this work, a typical slum nearby an urban household area
in Malaysia was selected as a source of contaminated grey water which is located on the opposite
side of a building site (100◦ 290 E and 5◦ 70 N) located in an urban area in a city in the Perak state,
Citation: Yusof, M.F.; Zainol, namely Parit Buntar, where the total urban grey water was being accumulated. Poor sanitation of
M.R.R.M.A.; Riahi, A.; Zakaria, N.A.; that slum was seen to pose various health risks to the public, and hence, the importance of treating its
Shaharuddin, S.; Juiani, S.F.; Noor, grey water was perceived. Thus, this study was conducted to evaluate the performance of a low-cost
N.M.; Zawawi, M.H.; Ikhsan, J.
double slope passive solar still by treating the grey water from the aforementioned slum, as well as to
Investigation on the Urban Grey
analyze the quality, quantity, and cost per liter of the produced water. Grey water was collected and
Water Treatment Using a
filled in the solar still basin at s depth of 1 cm. The cover and basin of the solar still were made from
Cost-Effective Solar Distillation Still.
transparent polythene film and black-painted stainless steel trough, respectively, while the frame was
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159452
made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and the solar still was named PSSG1 abbreviated. PSSG1 was
exposed to Malaysia’s climate conditions for several days from 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. at Universiti
Academic Editors: Andrea G.
Sains Malaysia (USM), which was able to produce the maximum amount of water up to 4.11 L/m2 ·d
Capodaglio and Agostina Chiavola
with the cost per liter/m2 of only USD 0.0082. Water quality parameters tested showed that water
Received: 13 June 2022 produced from PSSG1 met the standards of the restricted and unrestricted reusable non-potable grey
Accepted: 28 July 2022 water, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Malaysian class I drinking water standards. It
Published: 2 August 2022 was also found that the PSSG1 with higher average daily basin water temperature produced water
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with higher quality for the reuse applications and yielded healthier water compared to the water
with regard to jurisdictional claims in produced by some reported previous grey water treatment techniques. Therefore, the cost-effective
published maps and institutional affil- PSSG1 can be used as a daily practical alternative for treating low-strength grey water collected from
iations. various urban household areas in Malaysia in order to assist pollutants removal from the drained
urban grey waters.

Keywords: grey water reuse; triangular-shaped solar distiller; polythene film cover; economical
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. potable water production
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
1. Introduction
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The urban wastewater consisting of all non-toilet streams originating from kitchen
4.0/). sinks, dishwashers, baths, hand basins, and washing machines is generally referred to

Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159452 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 2 of 20

as urban grey water [1–4]. A total of 50–70% of each household’s total wastewater is
grey water [5,6]. Reusable treated grey water reuses as sustainable non-potable water has
received great attention recently due to having low contaminants [7]. Until now, in the
urban zones in many developing countries, the volume of contaminated grey water from
slums due to the kitchen, laundry, and bathing activities in many household areas has
increased due to the high rates of urbanization and population growth. Poor accessibility
and the lack of legal compliance in many urban slums have caused poor sanitation leading
to the increase in the occurrence of diseases and environmental pollution and consequently
poses various health risks to the public. The quality parameters of grey water by different
categories of the bathroom, laundry, kitchen, and mixed grey water are shown in Table 1 [8].

Table 1. The quality parameters of grey water by different categories [8].

Bathroom Laundry Kitchen Mixed

pH(-) 6.4–8.1 7.1–10 5.9–7.4 6.3–8.1
TSS (mg/L) 7–505 68–465 134–1300 25–183
Turbidity (NTU) 44–375 50–444 298.0 29–375
COD (mg/L) 100–633 231–2950 26–2050 100–700
BOD (mg/L) 50–300 48–472 536–1460 47–466
TN (mg/L) 3.6–19.4 1.1–40.3 11.4–74 1.7–34.3
TP (mg/L) 0.11- > 48.8 ND- > 171 2.9- > 74 0.11–22.8
Total coliforms
10–2.4 × 107 200.5–7 × 105 >2.4 × 108 56–8.03 × 103
(CFU/100 mL)
Fecal coliforms
0–3.4 × 105 50–1.4 × 103 - 0.1–1.5 × 108
(CFU/100 mL)

The quality parameters of different categories of grey water, as analyzed by Li (2009),

indicated that the kitchen and the laundry grey water had higher organics and physical
pollutants compared to the bathroom and mixed grey water [8]. The results also showed
that the bathroom and laundry grey water were less contaminated by microorganisms
compared to the other grey water streams. Based on this study [8], bathroom and mixed
grey water were classified as low-strength grey water, while grey water from laundry and
kitchen basins were considered as medium- and high-strength grey water, respectively.
Therefore, treating grey water is one of the main challenges in protecting the environment
and human health through reuse water applications [9,10]. Grey water treatment aims to
provide non-potable water for reuse applications such as laundry, toilet flushing, windows
and car washing, lawn irrigation, fire extinguishing, and groundwater discharge [1,3]. The
reusable grey water needs to achieve four quality standards, namely, sanitary safety, aesthet-
ics, environmental acceptance, and financial feasibility standards after the reuse treatment
processes [11]. As stated in several pieces of research [11–14], the guideline for non-potable
grey water reuse as developed by Li et al. in 2009 [15] for the unrestricted and restricted
water reuse encompasses the parameters of pH, fecal coliform, total coliforms, total sus-
pended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5 ), total nitrogen (TN), turbidity,
and total phosphorous (TP) [15]. According to the guideline [15], the unrestricted reuse
of grey water for non-potable water purposes, such as recreational impoundments, lakes,
and ponds with body contact (swimming purpose), requires a high range of water quality
parameters as follows: pH: 6–9, fecal coliform: ≤10/mL, total coliforms: ≤100/mL, TSS:
≤30 mg/L, BOD5 : ≤10 mg/L, TN: ≤1.0 mg/L, TP: ≤0.05 mg/L and turbidity: ≤2 NTU.
Many studies have been conducted about the treatment of urban households with
grey water at low, medium, and high strength levels using different techniques, such as
physical, chemical, and biological systems, in order to produce non-potable water for reuse
applications based on the above guideline. Some researchers investigated the physical
treatments of household grey water such as using the nylon sock type filter followed by
the steps of sedimentation and disinfection [16], a slanted soil filter [17], a sand filter along
with the activated carbon and disinfection [18], a medium strength UF membrane [19],
a submerged spiral wound module [20], ultrafiltration (UF) membrane of 0.05 µm pore
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 3 of 20

size [21], a direct nano-filtration membrane [22], sand filtration combined with the mem-
brane filtration and disinfection [23] and micro and ultrafiltration membranes [24]. Low
strength bath grey water was treated by March et al. [16] in which the quality parameters of
COD, turbidity, the suspended solids (SS), and TN were reduced from 171 mg/L, 20 NTU,
44 mg/L and 11.4 mg/L in the influent to 78 mg/L, 16.5 NTU, and 18.6 mg/L and 7.1 mg/L
in the effluent, respectively. In another study by Itayama et al. [17], the COD, the BOD,
the SS, the TN, and the TP in the kitchen basin grey water were reduced from 271 mg/L,
477 mg/L, 105 mg/L, 20.7 mg/L, and 3.8 mg/L to 40.6 mg/L, 81 mg/L, 23 mg/L, 4.4 mg/L,
and 0.6 mg/L, respectively, using a slanted soil filter. The chemical treatments of grey water
were studied in a few studies, such as the use of an electro-coagulation process followed
by a disinfection stage [25], the application of coagulation systems with the magnetic ion
exchange resin process, and the coagulation process using aluminum salt [26] as well as
application of photocatalytic ozonation [27]. Several studies investigated the performances
of several biological treatment techniques such as rotating biological contractor (RBC),
sequencing batch reactor (SBR), anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), constructed wetland
(CW), and membrane bioreactors (MBR)) in order to treat medium- and high-strength grey
water. For example, Nolde [11], Friedler et al. [28], and Eriksson et al. [29] investigated
the performance of the RBC, while Shin et al. [30] and Hernandez et al. [31] studied the
performance of the SBR in the grey water treatment. Meanwhile, Hernandez et al. [31]
and Elmitwalli and Otterpohl [32] looked into the performance of UASB, and Li et al. [7]
and Gross et al. [33] focused on the use of CW as the biological treatment process. The
performance of MBR for the treatment was investigated by Lesjean and Gnirss [34], Liu
et al. [35], Merz et al. [36], Ding et al. [37,38], Atanasova et al. [39], Bani-Melhem et al. [40]
and Fountoulakis et al. [41]. The performance of SBR followed by ultrafiltration was studied
by Kaminska and Marszalek [42], Chrispim, and Nolasco evaluated the performance of
biofilm reactors [43], practicing a hybrid MBR in comparison with a conventional MBR was
studied by Palmarin and Young [44], the use of stacked multi-layer reactors with passive
aeration and particle trapping was investigated by [45] for the treatment of grey water.
In work by March et al. [16], the physical process was performed in which the removal
rates of some parameters, such as COD, BOD5 , turbidity, TSS, TN, and TP from the bath
grey water were reported as 54.38% (not available) N/A, 17.50%, 57.72%, 37.71%, and
N/A, respectively. Meanwhile, Itayama et al. [17], who also examined the physical process,
reported the removal values as 85.01%, 83.01%, N/A, 78.09%, 78.74%, and 84.21% from
the kitchen basin grey water. In another experiment by Lin et al. [25] using the chemical
treatment, the results were observed at 60%, 60.86%, 90.69%, 68.96%, N/A, and N/A,
respectively. Meanwhile, Pidou et al. [26], who applied the chemical treatment, reported
the removal values as 63.71%, 88.78%, 90.81%, N/A, 12.77%, and 94.57%, respectively.
Using the RBC as a biological treatment, Friedler et al. [28] identified the removal values as
70.88%, 88.81%, 94.24%, 62.79%, 69.68% and 58.33%, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2. The calculated pollutants removal rates from grey water using several physical, chemical,
and biological treatment techniques in previous studies.

Removal Rate (%) of

Authors and Year [Ref.] Type of Treatment
COD BOD5 Turbidity TSS TN TP
(March et al., 2004) [16] Physical 54.38 N/A 17.50 57.72 37.71 N/A
(Itayama et al., 2004) [17] Physical 85.01 83.01 N/A 78.09 78.74 84.21
(Lin et al., 2005) [25] Chemical 60.00 60.86 90.69 68.96 N/A N/A
(Pidou et al., 2008) [26] Chemical 63.71 88.78 90.81 N/A 12.77 94.57
(Friedler et al., 2005) [28] Biological 70.88 88.81 94.24 62.79 69.68 58.33

The above studies identified that the physical treatment systems alone were not ade-
quate to ensure an acceptable range of impurities decreased from the urban grey water [15].
Although, the chemical treatments of low-strength grey water were capable of removing
 (Friedler et al., 2005) [28] Biological 70.88 88.81 94.24 62.79 69.68 58.33

Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 The above studies identified that the physical treatment systems alone were not4ad‐ of 20
equate to ensure an acceptable range of impurities decreased from the urban grey water
[15]. Although, the chemical treatments of low‐strength grey water were capable of re‐
moving the pollutants originating from organic materials, suspended solids, and surfac‐
the pollutants originating from organic materials, suspended solids, and surfactants well.
tants well. However, it was reported that employing the chemical methods is not appro‐
However, it was reported that employing the chemical methods is not appropriate for
priate for the treatment of medium‐ and high‐strength urban grey water [15]. Reportedly,
the treatment of medium- and high-strength urban grey water [15]. Reportedly, the best
the best approaches to grey water treatment were identified as using the integration of
approaches to grey water treatment were identified as using the integration of aerobic
aerobic biological methods such as RBC, SBR, and CW with physical filtration and disin‐
biological methods such as RBC, SBR, and CW with physical filtration and disinfection [15].
fection [15]. Meanwhile, MBR is considered the greatest feasible treatment alternative
Meanwhile, MBR is considered the greatest feasible treatment alternative [6,46] in order
[6,46] in order to supply non‐potable reusable grey water. However, it seems that the
to supply non-potable reusable grey water. However, it seems that the above treatment
above treatment systems alone are not capable of producing reusable grey water that
systems alone are not capable of producing reusable grey water that meets the World
meets the World Health Organization (WHO) drinking water standards. In contrast, solar
Health Organization (WHO) drinking water standards. In contrast, solar desalination stills
desalination
were reported stills wereofreported
as one as one ofalternatives
the cost-effective the cost‐effective
to treatalternatives
contaminated to treat
water contami‐
in order
nated water in order to produce safe and freshwater [47–63] without
to produce safe and freshwater [47–63] without employing the solid–liquid separation employing the solid–
liquid separation stage in the pre‐treatment system, including the
stage in the pre-treatment system, including the septic tank and screen and filter bags, in septic tank and screen
and
orderfilter bags, in order
to decrease the numberto decrease the number
of particles, of particles, the
thus investigating thussolar
investigating the solarin
still performance
still
termperformance
of households in term
urbanofgrey households urban grey
water treatment and water treatment
comparing and comparing
its performance with its
the
performance
performances with the performances
of each of the reportedofphysical,
each of the reported
chemical, andphysical,
biological chemical,
treatment and bio‐
system
logical
seems treatment
obligatory.system seems obligatory.
Solar
Solarstill
stillisisa asealed
sealed container
container with
withdifferent
differentconfigurations
configurations of shapes,
of shapes, i.e.,i.e.,
triangular
triangu-
[47–55], trapezoidal
lar [47–55], trapezoidal [56–60], pyramid
[56–60], [61], tubular
pyramid [62], and
[61], tubular hemispherical
[62], and hemispherical [63], in [63],
whichin
itwhich
is mainly encompassed
it is mainly encompassed of basin/bed to keep
of basin/bed the the
to keep contaminated
contaminated water
water andandhashasaa
transparent
transparentcover covertotoallow allowthe thesolar
solarradiation
radiationintensities
intensitiespasspassthrough
throughititand andthus
thustotoheat
heat
the
thebasin
basinwater.
water.
InInaasolar
solarstill,
still,the
theevaporation
evaporationand andcondensation
condensationprocesses
processesbetween
betweenthe thebasin
basinsurface
surface
water
waterand andthetheinner
innercovercoverofofthe thesolar
solarstill
still(the
(thebasic
basicprocess
processofofthe thehydrological
hydrologicalcycle) cycle)
would
wouldoccuroccurto toproduce
produce fresh fresh distilled water [64,65] (Figure
(Figure 1).
1). The
The rate
rateofofcondensed
condensedwater wa‐
ter vapor
vapor droplets
droplets ononthe theinner
innersurface
surfaceof ofthe
thetransparent
transparent cover of aa solar solarstill
still(glass
(glasscover)
cover)
strongly
stronglydepends
dependson onthetheraterateofofwater
waterevaporated
evaporatedfrom fromthethesurface
surfaceofofthe thebasin
basinwaterwaterinin
the
thesolar
solarstill
stillininthe
theform
formof ofvapors
vapors(Figure
(Figure1). 1).The
Thefollowing
followingequations
equationsand andformulas
formulasare are
presented
presentedwith withthe the calculations
calculations of the rates of condensed
condensed vaporvapordroplets
dropletsbasedbasedon onthe
thebasin
ba‐
water
sin waterevaporation
evaporation in which
in which the condensation
the condensation and evaporation
and evaporation rates rates
greatly depend
greatly on the
depend
onvalues of temperature
the values of temperature of basin of water and glass
basin water andof the of
glass solar
thestill
solar[51,52,64–68].
still [51,52,64–68].

Thesketch
Figure1.1.The
Figure sketchofofaasingle
singleslope
slopepassive
passivesolar
solarstill
still[65].
[65].

The numerical hourly condensed water production rate per unit area of a solar still
The numerical hourly condensed water production rate per unit area of a solar still
(Mhn ) is calculated [66] by dividing the rate of evaporative heat transfer from basin water
(Mhn) is calculated [66] by dividing the rate of evaporative heat transfer from basin water
surface (q ) [67] to the latent heat of water evaporation (L) which is shown as the following:
surface (qewew) [67] to the latent heat of water evaporation (L) which is shown as the follow‐
ing: M = (q /L) × 3600 kg/m2 h (1)
hn ew

The rate of evaporative heat transfer from the basin water surface (qew ) depends greatly
on the differences in the hourly values of temperatures of basin water (Tw ) and inner cover
(Tg ) of the solar still, which is calculated as the following:

qew = hew Ab (Tw − Tg ) (2)

Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 5 of 20

(Ab ) is the area of the solar still basin, and (hew ) is the evaporative heat transfer
coefficient from the water surface to the condensing cover of the solar still, whose value is
based on the values of the saturated vapor pressure at basin water and condensing cover
temperatures (Pw and Pg ) and convective heat transfer coefficient (hcw ). The values of hew
and hcw are calculated by [66]:

hew = 16.273 × 10−3 hcw (Pw − Pg )/(Tw − Tg ) (3)

and
hcw = 0.884 [Tw − Tg + (Pw − Pg ) × (Tw + 273)/268.9 × 103 − Pw ]1/3 (4)
The values of Pw and Pic are obtained according to [68] as follows:

Pw = 7235 − 431.45 Tw + 10.76 T2 w (5)

Pg = 7235 − 431.45 Tg + 10.76 T2 g (6)

Different designs of solar distillation stills were constructed and used to treat water
from lakes [48–51,53,69], groundwater [59,70–72], and seawater [52,73–75] in which these
are the natural water resources located nearby the remote, rural, and coastal areas. The
investigated parameters of treated water in these studies were reported to be acceptable
according to the WHO drinking water standards. In a study in Malaysia [51], the treatment
of water samples from a lake source was performed using two passive solar stills, which
were designed and fabricated using glass (GSS) and polythene film (PSS) as cover materials.
It was revealed in the study that the quality parameters of pH, TDS, salinity, nitrate,
nitrite, iron, turbidity, and EC after the experiment were in agreement with the acceptable
ranges of WHO standards for drinking water [76] (Table 3). Furthermore, GSS was found
to be capable of producing improved quality water compared to PSS as the hourly and
average daily basin water temperature of GSS were higher than those of the PSS. In another
study [69], samples of lake water were treated using two passive and active solar stills
whereby the examined parameters of pH, nitrate, iron, sulfate, and turbidity of both solar
stills were also in agreement with the WHO standards of drinking water [76]. It was found
by Al-Qadami et al. [69] that the active solar still with basin water temperature higher than
that of the passive solar still model could produce fresh water with improved quality.

Table 3. The performances of several solar stills after the treatments of lake water [51,69], groundwa-
ter [59] and seawater [52] samples, as recommended for the remote, rural and coastal community
consumption.

Passive Active Solar WHO Standards

Water Quality TrSS
PSS [51] GSS [51] Solar Still Still SSSB [59] for Drinking
Parameters [52]
[69] [69] Water [76]
pH 6.51 6.53 6.62 6.59 7.14 7.7 6.5–8.0
Total dissolved solids
95 28 ---- ---- 45 7.52 600
(TDS) mg/L
Total Arsenic (mg/L) ---- ---- ---- ---- ≤0.01 ---- 0.01
Salinity (mg/L) 0.1 0 ---- ---- Na 0.006 <0.25
Nitrate (mg/L) 0.6 0.4 0.45 0.38 0.74 ---- <50
Nitrite (mg/L) 0.03 0.01 ---- ---- Na ---- <0.05
Fluoride (mg/L) ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.02 ---- 1.5
Chloride (mg/L) ---- ---- ---- ---- 10.99 ---- 250
Hardness (mg/L) ---- ---- ---- ---- 33.81 ---- 200
Iron (mg/L) 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.07 0.00 ---- 0.3
Sulfate (mg/L) ---- ---- 0.2 0 0.72 ---- 250
Turbidity (NTU) 1.37 0.92 1.6 1.43 Na ---- <5
Electrical Conductivity
52.5 15.66 ---- ---- Na 11.6 <250
(EC) (µS/cm)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 6 of 20

In another study, groundwater with high arsenic content obtained from a rural com-
munity area in India was treated using a single slope single basin (SSSB) solar still [48]. It
was observed in the study that the parameters of pH, TDS, total Arsenic, nitrate, fluoride,
chloride, hardness, iron, sulfate, and total coliform after conducting the experiment using
SSSB [59] conformed with the WHO’s ranges of drinking water guideline [76], as given in
Table 3. In another study in Malaysia [51], seawater samples were treated using a low-cost
passive triangular solar still (TrSS), whereby the results showed that the quality parameters
of pH, salinity, TDS, and EC were also in compliance with the WHO standards of drinking
water [76] (Table 3).
However, until the present, the investigation on the use of solar still covered with a
low-cost polythene film layer and with a black painted stainless steel basin as a treatment
technique of the polluted urban grey water has not been reported.
As Malaysia enjoys varied annual average rates of daily solar radiation intensity with
ranges between the maximum rates from 700 to 800 W/m2 and the minimum rates from
500 to 600 W/m2 [49–52,57,77,78], thus, the daily intensities of solar radiation in Malaysia
have a potential to be used in a year for desalination systems using only solar energy such
as passive and active solar desalination stills.
In this work, a typical slum nearby an urban household area in Malaysia was selected
as a source of contaminated grey water which is located on the opposite side of a building
site (100◦ 290 E and 5◦ 70 N) located in an urban area in a city in the Perak state, namely
Parit Buntar, where the total urban grey water was being accumulated. Poor sanitation of
that slum was seen to pose various health risks to the public, and hence, the importance
of treating its grey water was perceived. Thus, this study was conducted to evaluate the
performance of a low-cost double slope passive solar still by treating the grey water from
the aforementioned slum, as well as to analyze the quality, quantity, and cost per liter of
the produced water. The cover and basin of the solar still were made from transparent
polythene film and black-painted stainless steel trough, respectively, while the frame
was made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The productivity of the solar stills in other
studies [52,60,79] was found to be increased by feeding the lower depth of water in their
basins. Accordingly, the collected grey water in this study was fed into the solar still basin
at 1 cm depth, and the solar still was named PSSG1, abbreviated. Therefore, the aim of this
study was to examine the treatment of grey water originating from one of the typical urban
areas in Malaysia by using a low-cost polythene film cover double slope solar still, namely
PSSG1, with has 1 cm water depth in its black-painted stainless steel trough in order to
evaluate the amount of freshwater production. The study also aimed to analyze the cost
per liter and quality of the water produced by PSSG1 whilst comparing its water quality
parameters, particularly the values of BOD5 , TSS, TN, TP, turbidity, pH, fecal coliforms,
and total coliforms after treatment, with the standards of non-potable grey water reuse
guideline [15] and the WHO drinking water standards [80]. The percentages of pollutants
removal by PSSG1 were also compared with those of the water produced by different types
of grey water treatment techniques in other studies, such as the physical, chemical, and
biological treatment processes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
This work was carried out to examine the treatment of urban grey water collected from
a typical urban slum in Parit Buntar urban zone, Perak, Malaysia (Figure 2). The samples
of grey water were collected from an urban grey water collection slum (Figures 3 and 4)
located approximately in front of a building site (Bank Islam, at the coordinate of 100◦ 290 E
and 5◦ 70 N), where the total grey water of the urban area was being drained and accumu-
lated. Generally, the Parit Buntar grey water slum contains grey water as discharged from
household kitchen basins, shops, laundries, and restaurant kitchen basins which was then
becoming diluted with the stormwater runoff. Poor sanitation of that slum seemed to pose
 2.1. Study Area
This work was carried out to examine the treatment of urban grey water collected
fromThis work was
a typical urbancarried
slum out to examine
in Parit Buntar the treatment
urban of urban
zone, Perak, grey water
Malaysia collected
(Figure 2). The
from a typical urban slum in Parit Buntar urban zone, Perak, Malaysia
samples of grey water were collected from an urban grey water collection slum (Figures (Figure 2). The
samples
3 and 4)of grey water
located were collected
approximately from
in front of aan urban grey
building waterIslam,
site (Bank collection slum
at the (Figuresof
coordinate
3100°29′
and 4) located approximately in front of a building site (Bank Islam, at
E and 5°7′ N), where the total grey water of the urban area was being drained the coordinate of
and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 7 of 20
100°29′ E and 5°7′
accumulated. N), where
Generally, theParit
the totalBuntar
grey water
greyof the urban
water slum area was being
contains drained
grey water asand
dis‐
accumulated.
charged fromGenerally,
householdthe Parit basins,
kitchen Buntar shops,
grey water slum and
laundries, contains grey water
restaurant kitchenasbasins
dis‐
charged
which was from household
then becomingkitchen
dilutedbasins,
with theshops, laundries,
stormwater andPoor
runoff. restaurant kitchen
sanitation basins
of that slum
various
which
seemed health
was tothenrisks
pose to thehealth
becoming
various public,risks
diluted and
withhence,
tothe the importance
stormwater
the public, and ofPoor
runoff.
hence,treating its grey
the sanitation
importance ofwater
that
of was
slum
treating
perceived.
seemed
its greyto posewas
water various health risks to the public, and hence, the importance of treating
perceived.
its grey water was perceived.

Figure2.2.The
Figure TheGoogle
Googlemap
mapimage
imageofofBank
BankIslam
Islamlocated
locatedininParit
ParitBuntar
BuntarUrban
Urbanzone,
zone,Malaysia.
Malaysia.
Figure 2. The Google map image of Bank Islam located in Parit Buntar Urban zone, Malaysia.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 3. The Google map images of Parit Buntar urban grey water collection channels (a) and the
Figure 3.
3. The
slum (b)
Figure
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Google
in front
The map
of Bank
Google images
images of
mapIslam. of Parit
Parit Buntar
Buntar urban
urban grey
grey water
water collection
collection channels
channels (a)
(a) and
8 of the
and the
20
slum
slum (b)
(b) in
in front
front of
of Bank
Bank Islam.
Islam.

Figure
Figure4.4.Photograph
Photographof ofresearchers
researcherscollecting
collectingthe
thegrey
greywater
watersamples
samplesfrom
fromthe
theslum
slumlocated
locatedin
inParit
Parit
Buntar
Buntarurban
urbanarea
area in
in front
front of
of Bank
Bank Islam.
Islam.

2.2. Experimental Set‐Up

In this study, a double slope passive solar still with a transparent polythene film layer
as cover, PVC pipes as frame, and black‐painted stainless steel trough as basin materials
(Figure 5) was designed and fabricated at the research site in the engineering campus of
Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Malaysia in order to treat the urban households’ grey
waters. The samples of urban grey water collected from a typical grey water slum in Parit
 cm, 2.5 cm, and 5 cm in Malaysia [52], 2 cm to 12 cm in India [60], and 1 cm, 2 cm, 3 cm,
and 4 cm in India [79] were conducted. As the productivity of the solar stills in these stud‐
ies [52, 60, and 79] was found to be increased by feeding the lower depth of water in their
basins, accordingly, the collected grey water in this study was fed into the solar still’s
basin with 1 cm depth to investigate the performance of the treated grey water in terms
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 of produced water quantity and quality. Hence, the solar still was named PSSG1, abbre‐ 8 of 20
viated.
Figure 5 shows the sketch and photograph of the experimental set‐up of the tested
PSSG1. As can be Set-Up
2.2. Experimental seen, the solar still frame had a length and width of 60 and 50 cm, re‐
spectively. The black‐painted
In this study, a double slope basinpassive
of PSSG1 had
solar a length
still with a of 50 cm, a width
transparent of 30 film
polythene cm, layer
and
aasdepth of 8 cm, with a calculated area of 0.15 m 2 and volume of 0.012 m3. The solar still
cover, PVC pipes as frame, and black-painted stainless steel trough as basin materials
was constructed
(Figure using theand
5) was designed cost‐effective
fabricatedpolythene film cover
at the research site inmaterials. Compared
the engineering campusto theof
solar still using
Universiti Sainsglass cover (USM),
Malaysia (GSS) [51], the useinoforder
Malaysia thosetomaterials
treat the has made
urban the solar still
households’ grey
lighter
waters.and Themore easily
samples of portable.
urban greyIn water
addition, PVC pipes
collected from aand polythene
typical film have
grey water slum longer
in Parit
duration,
Buntar urbani.e., up to 5(Figures
area years [81], compared
3 and 4), whichto was
vinylnearby
chlorideUSM,sheets with
were feddurability of twoat
into the basin
years
1 cm [82].
depth Thus, the 5).
(Figure lifetime of PSSG1 was expected up to 5 years in this work.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. The sketch of the solar still, PSSG1 (a) and the photograph of the experimental set up of
PSSG1 (b).

Comparative studies on passive solar stills with different basin water depths of 1.5 cm,
2.5 cm, and 5 cm in Malaysia [52], 2 cm to 12 cm in India [60], and 1 cm, 2 cm, 3 cm,
and 4 cm in India [79] were conducted. As the productivity of the solar stills in these
studies [52,60,79] was found to be increased by feeding the lower depth of water in their
basins, accordingly, the collected grey water in this study was fed into the solar still’s
basin with 1 cm depth to investigate the performance of the treated grey water in terms of
produced water quantity and quality. Hence, the solar still was named PSSG1, abbreviated.
Figure 5 shows the sketch and photograph of the experimental set-up of the tested
PSSG1. As can be seen, the solar still frame had a length and width of 60 and 50 cm,
respectively. The black-painted basin of PSSG1 had a length of 50 cm, a width of 30 cm,
and a depth of 8 cm, with a calculated area of 0.15 m2 and volume of 0.012 m3 . The solar
still was constructed using the cost-effective polythene film cover materials. Compared to
the solar still using glass cover (GSS) [51], the use of those materials has made the solar still
lighter and more easily portable. In addition, PVC pipes and polythene film have longer
duration, i.e., up to 5 years [81], compared to vinyl chloride sheets with durability of two
years [82]. Thus, the lifetime of PSSG1 was expected up to 5 years in this work.
Different designs of single and double slope passive solar stills were constructed
and tested experimentally in several countries with different climate conditions, such as
Saudi Arabia [83], India [56], Egypt [84], Jordan [61], Ivory Cost [68] and Malaysia [52,57]
and their performances were studied for durations of 1 day, 1 day, 4 days, 3 days, 1 day,
5 days and 5 days, respectively. Thus, the experiment using PSSG1 was conducted for a
period of three days, i.e., on 1, 5, and 10 of April 2019, in order to evaluate the cost per
liter/m2 , quantity, as well as the quality of the produced water. Specifically, the quality of
the collected grey water and the produced water were analyzed in the environmental lab
on the university campus. The above procedures were presented in the following schematic
diagram in this section (Figure 6). The total fabrication cost of PSSG1 was around RM 84.14
or USD 20.12 (Table 4). In the experiment, a multimeter was used in order to measure
the temperatures of the basin water, solar still inner cover, and the ambient hourly. The
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 9 of 20

solar radiation intensity on the campus was measured every 15 min using a solarimeter.
Table 5 shows the details of the models, accuracies, range, percentage errors, and standard
uncertainties of the instruments used in the experiment to measure solar radiation intensity,
water production, and temperature. The standard uncertainty was determined by Rahbar
√
and Isfahani [85] as u = (a/ 3 ), where a is the accuracy of the instrument, and u is the
standard uncertainty. In the process, vapors were condensed at the inner side of the PSSG1
transparent cover. The condensed water was moved down and collected at the bottommost
of the polythene film cover of the solar still (Figure 5). A measuring cylinder was used to
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20
measure the amount of the collected condensed water. Figure 7 illustrates the collected
grey water from a typical slum in the study area (a) and the water produced by PSSG1 (b).

Figure 6. AAschematic
Figure schematic diagram
diagram (flowchart)
(flowchart) presenting
presenting the
the methodology
methodologyprocedures
proceduresconducted
conducted at
at USM.
USM.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 10 of 20

Table 4. Fabrication costs of PSSG1.

Items Quantity Unit Cost (RM) Cost (RM)

Polythene film cover (0.15 mm thickness) 1.2m2 RM 1.90/m2 2.28
PVC pipe frame (15 mm diameter) 4.8 m RM 6.20/m 29.76
Stainless steel tray 1 40.00 40.00
Plastic rope 30 m RM 12.00/roll 3.60
Transparent tape 1 2.50 2.50
Flat black spray 1 6.00 6.00
Total cost 84.14
Note: USD 1 ≈ RM 4.18

Table 5. The model, accuracy, range, percentage errors and standard uncertainty of the experimental
instruments.

Standard
Instruments Model Accuracy Range % Error
Uncertainty
Digital multimeter EM382 ±1 ◦ C 0 to 100 ◦ C 1 ±0.5 ◦ C
Solarimeter SM206 ±1 W/m 2 0 to 3000 W/m 2 0.5 ±0.5 W/m2
Figure 6. A schematic diagram (flowchart) presenting the methodology procedures ±
Measuring Cylinder ± 0.5 mL 0 to 50 mL 0.5 0.3 mL at
conducted
USM.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Photograph of the water produced by PSSG1 (a) and the grey water collected from the Parit
Buntar urban area (b).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effects of Solar Radiation Intensity on Temperatures of Water, Inner Cover of PSSG1, and
Hourly Water Production
Table 6 shows the variations of average solar radiation intensity (Is ), the average
temperatures of water (Tw ), PSSG1’s inner cover (Tic ), and ambient air (Ta ), as well as the
cumulative productivities (Mc ) of the solar still from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. within the three
experimental days on the 1, 5 and 10 April 2019. As can be seen, with the rise in the average
solar intensities, all the average temperatures (ambient, basin water, and PSSG1’s inner
cover) have increased, which resulted in an increased amount of water production (Table 6).
In detail, the highest average solar radiation intensity took place on 10 April 2019 with the
rate of 735.00 W/m2 , in which this condition caused the average temperatures (Tw and Tic ),
and Mc to achieve the values of 48.45 ◦ C, 41.23 ◦ C, and 4.11 L/m2 , respectively.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 11 of 20

Table 6. The average values of TW and Tic of PSSG1, Is and Ta and the cumulative productivity of
PSSG1 (Mc ) obtained from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. for the three experimental days.

Average Is Average Ta Average TW Average Tic

Date Mc (L/m2 ·d)
(W/m2 ) (◦ C) (◦ C) (◦ C)
01.04.2019 516.47 31.04 44.73 38.02 2.81
05.04.2019 652.23 32.09 47.65 40.38 3.74
10.04.2019 735.00 32.36 48.45 41.23 4.11

The plot of Is values obtained from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on the third experimental day
(10 April 2019) is shown in Figure 8. Meanwhile, the plot of hourly values of Tw and Tic
versus the values of Mh of PSSG1 on this day is shown in Figure 9. The average values of Is ,
Tw , and Tic of PSSG1 and Ta were found to be 735 W/m2 , 48.45 and 41.23 ◦ C, and 32.36 ◦ C,
respectively, on this day (Table 6). The highest values of Tw , Tic of PSSG1, and Ta were
recorded at 57, 47, and 36 ◦ C respectively at 2:00 p.m. once the Is reached the highest value
of 1277 W/m2 (Figures 8 and 9). The rise and fall of these temperatures corresponded to
the growth and decline in the solar radiation intensity all over the day (Figures 8 and 9).
Thus, these results conform to the results obtained in other studies [48,51,52]. As seen
in Figures 8 and 9, the water production by PSSG1 corresponds to the solar radiation
intensity and water temperature. The highest evaporation from the PSSG1’s basin water
was observed during the experiment at the highest PSSG1 water temperature at 2:00 p.m.,
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
which corresponds to the increase in the solar radiation intensity to the highest value of
1277 W/m2 at that time (Figures 8 and 9).

8. Variations
Figure 8.
Figure Variations of solar radiation
of solar intensity
radiation (Is ) from(I8sa.m.
intensity to 68p.m.
) from a.m.ontothe
6 third
p.m.experimental
on the third experimental
day (10 April 2019).
day (10 April 2019).
The highest hourly water production by the solar still, i.e., 0.70 L/m2 , was recorded at
3:00 p.m. even though the solar radiation intensity and the water temperature had reduced
from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. (Figures 8 and 9). This result shows that there was a one-hour time
lag between the peak values of solar radiation intensity and water temperature. Such a
condition was similarly reported in other previous studies [48,49,51,52,86–93].
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 Figure 8. Variations of solar radiation intensity (Is) from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on the12third
of 20 experimental
day (10 April 2019).

Figure 9. Variations of temperatures of water and inner cover of PSSG1, ambient temperature and
Figure 9. Variations
PSSG1’s hourly waterof temperatures
production of water
from 8 a.m. and
to 6 p.m. oninner cover
10 April 2019.of PSSG1, ambient temperature and
PSSG1’s hourly water production from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on 10 April 2019.
3.2. Cumulative Water Production of PSSG1
The maximum
3.2. Cumulative values
Water of the cumulative
Production of PSSG1productivity of PSSG1 (Mc ) on the third exper-
imental day (10 April 2019) were shown in Figure 10. The solar still produced the maximum
The of
amount maximum
4.11 L/m2 of values
potableofwater
the during
cumulative productivity
the experimental day. The ofmaximum
PSSG1 (Mc) cumu-on the third
experimental day (10 April 2019) were shown in Figure 10. The solar still produced the
lative productivity of this low cost solar still was higher than those of solar stills examined
by previous
maximum studies in
amount of Malaysia
4.11 L/m [47,48,51,52,57],
2 of potableIndia water [56,60,70,94],
during the Egypt [84,95], Jor- day. The
experimental
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
dan [61,96], Nigeria [97] and Pakistan [98], whereby the maximum cumulative productivity 13 of 20
maximum cumulative productivity of this low cost solar still was higher than those of
values were recorded by these studies at 2.10, 2.227, 3.22, 1.55, 2.26, 2.54, 2.10, 1.91, 3.03,
solar
4.10,stills
3.58, examined by previous
2.99, 3.85, 2.396, and 3.25 L/mstudies in Malaysia [47,48,51,52,57], India [56,60,70,94],
2 ·d, respectively.

Egypt [84,95], Jordan [61,96], Nigeria [97] and Pakistan [98], whereby the maximum
cumulative productivity values were recorded by these studies at 2.10, 2.227, 3.22, 1.55,
2.26, 2.54, 2.10, 1.91, 3.03, 4.10, 3.58, 2.99, 3.85, 2.396, and 3.25 L/m2∙d, respectively.

Figure 10. The values of cumulative water production of PSSG1 (Mc ) from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on
Figure 10. The values of cumulative water production of PSSG1 (Mc) from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on 10
10 April 2019.
April 2019.
3.3. Cost Study and Analysis of the Produced Water by PSSG1
3.3. Cost Study and Analysis of the Produced Water by PSSG1
As shown in Table 4, the assumed fixed cost (F) [95] of PSSG1 is USD 20.12, which is
As shown
equal to its in Table 4, the
fabrication assumed
cost. fixedthat
Assuming costn(F) [95]estimated
is the of PSSG1 lifetime
is USD 20.12, whichF is
of PSSG1, is the
equal to its
fixed fabrication
cost, cost. Assuming
V is the variable that
cost, and C isn the
is the estimated
total lifetime
or cumulative of PSSG1,
cost, F is the
the average rate of
fixed cost, V is the variable cost, and C is the total or cumulative cost, the average rate of
the cost of the distillate yield was then calculated. Based on Equation (7), the total cost of
the solar still is given as [95]:
C=F+V (7)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 13 of 20

the cost of the distillate yield was then calculated. Based on Equation (7), the total cost of
the solar still is given as [95]:
C=F+V (7)
As V equals n × 0.3 × F, then C = F + 0.3 × F × n; therefore, the total cost of PSSG1
with the expected still lifetime of five years is calculated as:

C = 20.12 + 0.3 × 20.12 × 5 = USD 50.30

The average daily productivity of PSSG1 was estimated from the experimental day
as 4.11 L/m2 ·day, assuming that solar still would operate 300 days in the year [95]. The
obtained total water production of PSSG1 during the solar still life was MPSSG1 = 6165 L/m2 .
Therefore, the cost per liter/m2 from the PSSG1 was calculated as: 50.30/6165 = USD
0.0082. Furthermore, it was also observed that the cost per liter/m2 of PSSG1 in this study
was much lower (i.e., USD 0.0082) than other solar stills reported by previous studies in
Pakistan [98], India [56,79,99–103], Malaysia [50,82], Egypt [95,97,104–107], Canada [52],
Saudi Arabia [108], Iran [109–113] which reportedly costed at the rates of USD 0.063, 0.2,
0.024, 0.0264, 0.026, 0.86, 0.026, 0.054, 0.105, 0.015, 0.065, 0.049, 0.08, 0.048, 0.06, 0.14, 0.18,
0.039, 0.13, 0.023, 0.019, 0.105 and 0.1652, respectively.

3.4. Quality Analysis of the Grey Water Influent and Effluent

Based on the laboratory analysis results of the quality of the collected grey water
(Table 7) and the grey water quality data (Table 1), it can be implied that the grey water
sampled from a typical slum nearby the Parit Buntar urban area can be categorized as low-
strength grey water. By using PSSG1 in treating the collected grey water, the parameters
concentrations of pH, turbidity, COD, TDS, BOD5 , TSS, TN, NH3 , TP, total coliform, fecal co-
liform, nitrate, nitrite, EC and salinity decreased in the effluent produced as follows: In Day
1, the values decreased from 7.42, 79.1 NTU, 84 mg/L, 240 mg/L, 18.06 mg/L, 176 mg/L,
6.649 mg/L, 6.0 mg/L, 4.3 mg/L, 1020/mL, 110/mL, 7.0 mg/L, 0.298 mg/L, 160.2 µS/cm
and 0.07 mg/L to 7.1, 2.6 NTU, 9.2 mg/L, 87.03 mg/L, 0.5 mg/L, 3.1 mg/L, 0.223 mg/L,
0.07 mg/L, 0.01 mg/L, 10/100 mL, 3/100 mL, 1.1 mg/L, 0.04 mg/L, 48.3 µS/cm and
0.06 mg/L. In Day 2, the values decreased to 6.9, 2.3 NTU, 8.7 mg/L, 69.31 mg/L, 0.3 mg/L,
2.6 mg/L, 0.142 mg/L, 0.04 mg/L, 0 mg/L, 8/100 mL, 3/100 mL, 0.95 mg/L, 0.03 mg/L,
43.6 µS/cm and 0.03 mg/L; and in Day 3, the values decreased to 6.7, 2 NTU, 8 mg/L,
61.49 mg/L, 0.2 mg/L, 2 mg/L, 0.129 mg/L, 0.03 mg/L, 0 mg/L, 7/100 mL, 2/100 mL,
0.9 mg/L, 0.03 mg/L, 41.2 µS/cm and 0.02 mg/L (Table 7). Thus, these results indicate
that the quality of the produced water by PSSG1 was improved on Day 3 compared to the
quality parameters on Day 1 and Day 2. This was because the average solar radiation inten-
sity was obtained the highest at 735 W/m2 and the average still basin water temperature
reached the highest value of 48.45 ◦ C on Day 3 (Table 6).
In a comparative study by Riahi et al. 2018 [51], the solar still, GSS, obtained a higher
average of Tw which resulted in producing an improved quality of freshwater compared
to the water produced by PSS [51]. In another study by Al-Qadami et al. [69], the active
solar still, which was integrated with an external heat source of a solar power system, had
a higher average basin water temperature than the passive solar still water temperature
throughout the experiment; this shows that use of active solar still resulted in producing
better quality freshwater compared to the passive solar still which does not use the external
energy (Table 3). As seen in Tables 6 and 7, PSSG1, which had a higher average basin water
temperature on Day 3 (48.45 ◦ C), produced a better quality of freshwater compared to those
produced on Day 1 (44.73 ◦ C) and Day 2 (47.65 ◦ C). Therefore, the above results conform to
the results from other comparative studies [51,69]. The parameters of the produced water
by this low-cost solar still were also in compliance with the standards of the non-potable
grey water reuse guideline offered by Li et al. [15], WHO-2017 drinking water standards
(Table 7 [80]), and the Malaysian class I drinking water standards (Table 7 [114]).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 14 of 20

Table 7. Performance evaluation of the solar still (PSSG1) used for the treatment of the grey water of Parit Buntar urban area.

Malaysia Class I
Grey Water WHO-2017 Drinking
Water Quality Generated Water by Generated Water by Generated Water by Drinking Water
Collected from the Water Standards (WHO,
Parameters PSSG1 on Day 1 PSSG1 on Day 2 PSSG1 on Day 3 Standards (EQR,
Urban Area 2017) [80]
2006) [114]
pH 7.42 7.1 6.9 6.7 6.5–8.0 6.5–8.0
Chemical Oxygen
84 9.2 8.7 8.0 <10 <10
Demand (COD) (mg/L)
Biochemical oxygen
18.06 0.5 0.3 0.2 <2 <1
demand (BOD5 ) (mg/L)
Salinity (mg/L) 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.02 <0.25 <0.50
Total dissolved solids
240 87.03 69.31 61.49 <600 <500
(TDS) (mg/L)
Total suspended solids
176 3.1 2.6 2 <250 <25
(TSS) (mg/L)
Ammonia, NH3 (mg/L) 6.0 0.07 0.04 0.03 <1.5 <1.5
Turbidity (NTU) (mg/L) 79.1 2.6 2.3 2.0 <5 <5
Nitrate (mg/L) 7.0 1.1 0.95 0.9 <50 <50
Nitrite (mg/L) 0.298 0.04 0.03 0.03 <0.05 <0.05
Total nitrogen (TN)
6.649 0.223 0.142 0.129 <1 <1
(mg/L)
Total Phosphorus (TP)
4.3 0.01 0.0 0.0 <0.05 <0.05
(mg/L)
Faecal Coliform
110 3 3 2 <10/100 mL <10/100 mL
(CFU/100 mL)
Total Coliform (CFU/100
1020 10 8 7 <100/100 mL <100/100 mL
mL)
Electrical conductivity
160.2 48.3 43.6 41.2 <250 <1000
(µS/cm)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 15 of 20

In addition, PSSG1 was observed to be capable in removing pollutants from the grey
water on the third experimental day, such as COD, BOD5 , turbidity, TDS, TN, TSS, TP,
NH3 , total coliforms, faecal coliforms, nitrate, nitrite, EC and salinity, at the highest rates
(i.e., by 90.47%, 98.89%, 97.47%, 74.37%, 98.05%, 98.86%, 100%, 99.50%, 99.31%, 98.18%,
87.14%, 89.93%, 74.28% and 71.42%, respectively). These rates were found to be higher
than the pollutants removal rates through other techniques, such as the physical process
by March et al. [16] and Itayama et al. [17], the chemical treatment by Lin et al. [25]
and Pidou et al. [26], and the RBC treatment by Friedler et al. [28], as shown in Table 2,
respectively. Therefore, it was concluded that the grey water treatment using PSSG1 in
this study was considerably more efficient compared to other treatment processes, such
as physical [16–23], chemical [25,26], and biological [7,11,28–30,32–36] treatment systems.
This was due to PSSG1 being noted to be capable of producing fresh directly without
requiring any pre- and post-treatment processes.
Overall, the grey water treatment using PSSG1 in this study has fulfilled the four
required principles of grey water treatment for reuse applications as mentioned by Nolde,
2000 [11], which are aesthetics, sanitary safety, environmental acceptance, and financial
feasibility. Most of the grey water treatment methods (such as physical, chemical, and
biological treatments) employ the solid–liquid separation stage in the pre-treatment system,
including the septic tank, and screen and filter bags, in order to decrease the number of
particles [15]. This work, on the other hand, has identified that the use of separation steps
in the treatment processes might not be needed with the use of PSSG1.

4. Conclusions
In summary, the energy from the sun, which is a sustainable energy source, can be well
absorbed by a low-cost solar still and then transformed as heat for treating a typical low-
strength urban grey water. This work investigated the use of a low-cost passive solar still,
namely, PSSG1, in treating the grey water collected from a typical urban grey water slum
to experiment with the treatment process under the Malaysian outdoor tropical climate
conditions. It was found that PSSG1 was capable of removing the pollutants of COD, BOD5 ,
turbidity, TDS, TSS, TN, TP, NH3 , total coliform, fecal coliform, nitrate, nitrite, EC, and
salinity by 90.47%, 98.89%, 97.47%, 74.37%, 98.86%, 98.05%, 100%, 99.50%, 99.31%, 98.18%,
87.14%, 89.93%, 74.28%, and 71.42%, respectively, from the contaminated grey water which
accredited that the parameters of the water produced by this solar still were in compliance
with the standards of the restricted and unrestricted non-potable grey water reuse guideline,
the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Malaysian class I drinking water. It was
also determined that obtaining the highest average of the bain water temperature in PSSG1
resulted in producing the highest daily amount of water at 4.11 L/m2 and the improved
quality of freshwater. Furthermore, the cost per L/m2 of PSSG1 was significantly low,
i.e., USD 0.0082, which affirmed that this solar still can be a potentially beneficial and
economical approach to treating grey water in urban areas. Therefore, PSSG1 can be used
as a practical alternative for treating low-strength grey water collected from various urban
household areas in Malaysia in order to assist pollutants removal from the drained urban
grey waters.

Directions for the Further Research

The distillate water produced by the solar distiller is deficient in minerals and fluoride
concentration, and hence, some minerals and fluoride salts may be added to the distil-
late [59] to be in accordance with the requirements per drinking water quality standards,
which state 1.5 mg/L in WHO, 2008 [76]. Meanwhile, Based on the studies reported by
Parsa et al., 2021 [65], some thermally resistant waterborne pathogens such as E. coli and
Enterococcus faecalis are able to survive in distiller basin water with temperatures up to 55
and 65 ◦ C, respectively; thus, the optimal temperature of water in the distiller should reach
above 65 ◦ C to disinfect the distiller basin water and destroy those pathogens; therefore, one
of the best solutions is by integrating the passive solar still in this work with the external
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 16 of 20

energy sources such as the photovoltaic thermal modules recommended by [115–117] to

heat the basin water and increase the water temperature above 65 ◦ C to avoid transmitting
the pollutants and pathogen into the distillate. The amount of water production of the solar
still and the quality of the produced water will also be improved. However, the cost of the
modules should be considered. The performances of the passive solar still in this work
and the future planned solar still integrated with the photovoltaic thermal modules may
also be investigated for treating the agro-based industrial wastewater (AIW) such as the
wastewaters discharged from an olive oil mill, sugar industry, pulp and paper mill, palm
oil mill, coffee industry and vegetable oil refinery in the future in Malaysia and comparing
their performances with the presentations of the electro-coagulation processes stated by
Rakhmania et al. [118].

Author Contributions: M.F.Y., M.R.R.M.A.Z. and A.R. wrote the original draft of the manuscript;
N.A.Z., S.S., S.F.J., N.M.N., M.H.Z., M.R.R.M.A.Z. and J.I. edited the manuscript, data 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 (MOHE), Malaysia”, grant
number “FRGS/1/2021/TK0/USM/02/17”. APC was funded by the “River Engineering and Urban
Drainage Research Centre (REDAC)”.
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: The authors highly appreciate the support and funding provided by Ministry of
Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia, respectively. Authors also thank to the REDAC technicians,
Rahim Bin Ghazali, Khairul Nizam Bin Abu, Shahrizor Bin Salim and Zakaria Ansori Bin Abdul
Rahman for their kind cooperation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Jefferson, B.; Laine, A.; Parsons, S.; Stephenson, T.; Judd, S. Technologies for domestic wastewater recycling. Urban Water J. 2000,
1, 285–292. [CrossRef]
2. Otterpohl, R.; Albold, A.; Oldenburg, M. Source control in urban sanitation and waste management: Ten systems with reuse of
resources. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 39, 153–160. [CrossRef]
3. Eriksson, E.; Auffarth, K.; Henz, M.; Ledi, A. Characteristics of grey wastewater. Urban Water J. 2002, 4, 85–104. [CrossRef]
4. Ottoson, J.; Stenström, T.A. Faecal contamination of greywater and associated microbial risks. Water Res. 2003, 37, 645–655.
[CrossRef]
5. Eriksson, E.; Auffarth, K.; Eilersen, A.M.; Henze, M.; Ledin, A. Household chemicals and personal care products as sources for
xenobiotic organic compounds in grey wastewater. Water SA 2003, 29, 135–146. [CrossRef]
6. Friedler, E.; Hadari, M. Economic feasibility of on-site grey water reuse in multi-storey buildings. Desalination 2006, 190, 221–234.
[CrossRef]
7. Li, Z.; Gulyas, H.; Jahn, M.; Gajurel, D.R.; Otterpohl, R. Greywater treatment by constructed wetland in combination with
TiO2 -based photocatalytic oxidation for suburban and rural areas without sewer system. Water Sci. Technol. 2003, 48, 101–106.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Li, F. Treatment of Household Grey Water for Non-Potable Reuses. Ph.D. Thesis, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg,
Germany, 2009.
9. Tilley, E.; Zurbrügg, C.; Lüthi, C. A flowstream approach for sustainable sanitation systems. In Social Perspectives on the Sanitation
Challenge; van Vliet, B., Spaargaren, G., Oosterveer, P., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 69–86.
10. Katukiza, A.Y.; Ronteltap, M.; Niwagaba, C.B.; Foppen, J.W.A.; Kansiime, F.; Lens, P.N.L. Sustainable sanitation technology
options for urban slums. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 964–978. [CrossRef]
11. Nolde, E. Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in multi-storey buildings over ten years’ experience in Berlin. Urban Water J.
2000, 1, 275–284. [CrossRef]
12. Maeda, M.; Nakada, K.; Kawamoto, K.; Ikeda, M. Area-wide use of reclaimed water in Tokyo, Japan. Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 33,
51–57. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 17 of 20

13. Ernst, M.; Sperlich, A.; Zheng, X.; Gan, Y.; Hu, J.; Zhao, X.; Wang, J.; Jekel, M. An integrated wastewater treatment and reuse
concept for the Olympic Park 2008, Beijing. Desalination 2007, 202, 293–301. [CrossRef]
14. Asano, T. Milestones in the reuse of municipal wastewater. In Proceedings of the Water Supply and Sanitation for All, Berching,
Germany, 27–28 September 2007.
15. Li, F.; Wichmann, K.; Otterpohl, R. Review of the technological approaches for grey water treatment and reuses. Sci. Total Environ.
2009, 407, 3439–3449. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. March, J.G.; Gual, M.; Orozco, F. Experiences on greywater re-use for toilet flushing in a hotel (Mallorca Island, Spain). Desalination
2004, 164, 241–247. [CrossRef]
17. Itayama, T.; Kiji, M.; Suetsugu, A.; Tanaka, N.; Saito, T.; Iwami, N.; Mizuochi, M.; Inamori, Y. On site experiments of the slanted
soil treatment systems for domestic gray water. Water Sci. Technol. 2004, 53, 193–201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Pidou, M. Hybrid Membrane Processes for Water Reuse. Ph.D. Thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK, 2006.
19. Birks, R. Biological Aerated Filters and Membranes for Greywater Treatment. Master’s Thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield,
UK, 1998.
20. Li, F.; Behrendt, J.; Wichmann, K.; Otterpohl, R. Resources and nutrients oriented greywater treatment for non-potable reuses.
Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 57, 1901–1907. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Sostar-Turk, S.; Petrinic, I.; Simonic, M. Laundry wastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane filtration. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2005, 44, 185–196. [CrossRef]
22. Ramon, G.; Green, M.; Semiat, R.; Dosoretz, C. Low strength greywater characterization and treatment by direct membrane
filtration. Desalination 2004, 170, 241–250. [CrossRef]
23. Ward, M. Treatment of Domestic Greywater Using Biological and Membrane Separation Techniques. Ph.D. Thesis, Cranfield
University, Cranfield, UK, 2000.
24. Pinto, A.C.S.; Grossi, L.; Carvalho de Melo, R.A.; Macedo de Assis, T.; Ribeiro, V.M.; Santos Amaral, M.C.; de Souza Figueiredo,
K.C. Carwash wastewater treatment by micro and ultrafiltration membranes: Effects of geometry, pore size, pressure difference
and feed flow rate in transport properties. J. Water Process Eng. 2017, 17, 143–148. [CrossRef]
25. Lin, C.-J.; Lo, S.-L.; Kuo, C.-Y.; Wu, C.-H. Pilot-scale electrocoagulation with bipolar aluminium electrodes for on-site domestic
greywater reuse. J. Environ. Eng. 2005, 131, 491–495. [CrossRef]
26. Pidou, M.; Avery, L.; Stephenson, T.; Jeffrey, P.; Parsons, S.A.; Liu, S.; Memon, F.A.; Bruce Jefferson, B. Chemical solutions for
greywater recycling. Chemosphere 2008, 71, 147–155. [CrossRef]
27. Garcia, D.T.; Ozer, L.Y.; Parrino, F.; Ahmed, M.; Brudecki, G.P.; Hasan, S.W.; Palmisano, G. Photocatalytic ozonation under visible
light for the remediation of water effluents and its integration with an electro-membrane bioreactor. Chemosphere 2018, 209,
534–541. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Friedler, E.; Kovalio, R.; Galil, N.I. On-site greywater treatment and reuse in multi-storey buildings. Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 51,
187–194. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Eriksson, E.; Yan, X.; Lundsbye, M.; Madsen, T.S.; Andersen, H.R.; Ledin, A. Variation in grey wastewater quality reused for toilet
flushing. In Proceedings of the 6th IWA Specialty Conference on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse of Sustainability, Antwerp,
Belgium, 9–12 October 2007.
30. Shin, H.S.; Lee, S.M.; Seo, I.S.; Kim, G.O.; Lim, K.H.; Song, J.S. Pilot-scale SBR and MF operation for the removal of organic and
nitrogen compounds from greywater. Water Sci. Technol. 1998, 38, 80–88. [CrossRef]
31. Hernandez, L.; Temmink, H.; Zeeman, G.; Buisman, C.J.N. Comparsion of three systems for biological grey water treatment.
Water 2010, 2, 155–169. [CrossRef]
32. Elmitwalli, T.A.; Otterpohl, R. Anaerobic biodegradability and treatment of grey water in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
(UASB) reactor. Water Res. 2007, 41, 1379–1387. [CrossRef]
33. Gross, A.; Shmueli, O.; Ronen, Z.; Raveh, E. Recycled vertical flow constructed wetland (RVFCW)—A novel method of recycling
greywater for irrigation in small communities. Chemosphere 2007, 66, 916–923. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Lesjean, B.; Gnirss, R. Grey water treatment with a membrane bioreactor operated at low SRT and low HRT. Desalination 2006,
199, 432–434. [CrossRef]
35. Liu, R.; Huang, H.; Chen, L.; Wen, X.; Qian, Y. Operational performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor for reclamation of
bath wastewater. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 125–130. [CrossRef]
36. Merz, C.; Scheumann, R.; Hamouri, B.E.; Kraume, M. Membrane bioreactor technology for the treatment of greywater from a
sports and leisure club. Desalination 2007, 215, 37–43. [CrossRef]
37. Ding, A.; Liang, H.; Li, G.; Derlon, N.; Szivak, I.; Morgenroth, E.; Pronk, W. Impact of aeration shear stress on permeate flux and
fouling layer properties in a low pressure membrane bioreactor for the treatment of grey water. Water Res. 2016, 510, 382–390.
[CrossRef]
38. Ding, A.; Liang, H.; Li, H.; Szivak, I.; Traber, J.; Pronk, W. A low energy gravity driven membrane bioreactor system for grey
water treatment: Permeability and removal performance of organics. J. Membr. Sci. 2017, 542, 408–417. [CrossRef]
39. Atanasova, N.; Dalmau, M.; Comas, J.; Poch, M.; Rodriguez-Roda, I.; Buttiglieri, G. Optimized MBR for greywater reuse systems
in hotel facilities. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 193, 503–511. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Bani-Melhem, K.; Al-Qodah, Z.; Al-Shannag, M.; Qasaimeh, A.; Qtaishat, M.R.; Alkasrawi, M. On the performance of real grey
water treatment using a submerged, Membrane bioreactor system. J. Membr. Sci. 2015, 476, 40–49. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 18 of 20

41. Fountoulakis, M.S.; Markakis, N.; Petousi, I.; Manios, T. Single house on-site grey water treatment using a submerged membrane
bioreactor for toilet flushing. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 551–552, 706–711. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Kaminska, G.; Marszalek, A. Advanced treatment of real grey water by SBR followed by Ultrafiltration—Performance and fouling
behaviour. Water 2020, 12, 154. [CrossRef]
43. Chrispim, M.C.; Nolasco, M.A. Greywater treatment using a moving bed biofilm reactor at a university campus in Brazil. J. Clean.
Prod. 2017, 142, 290–296. [CrossRef]
44. Palmarin, M.J.; Young, S. Comparison of the treatment performance of a hybrid and conventional membrane bioreactor for
greywater reclamation. J. Water Process Eng. 2019, 28, 54–59. [CrossRef]
45. Prajapati, B.; Jensen, M.B.; Jørgensen, N.O.G.; Petersen, N.B. Grey water treatment in stacked multi-layer reactors with passive
aeration and particle trapping. Water Res. 2019, 161, 181–190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Lazarova, V.; Hills, S.; Birks, R. Using recycled water for non-potable, urban uses: A review with particular reference to toilet
flushing. Water Supply 2003, 3, 69–77. [CrossRef]
47. Riahi, A.; Yusof, K.W.; Isa, M.H.; Mahinder Singh, B.S.; Sapari, N.B. Solar stills productivity with different arrangements of PV-DC
heater and sand layer in still basin: A comparative investigation. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2014, 8, 1363–1372. [CrossRef]
48. Riahi, A.; Yusof, K.W.; Mahinder Singh, B.S.; Olisa, E.; Sapari, N.B.; Isa, M.H. The performance investigation of triangular solar
stills having different heat storage materials. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2015, 6, 385–391. [CrossRef]
49. Riahi, A.; Wan, Y.K.; Mahinder Singh, B.S.; Isa, M.H.; Olisa, E.; Zahari, N.A.M. Sustainable potable water production using a solar
still with photovoltaic modules-AC heater. Desalination Water Treat. 2016, 57, 14929–14944. [CrossRef]
50. Riahi, A.; Zakaria, N.A.; Isa, M.H.; Yusof, K.W.; Mahinder Singh, B.S.; Zahiraniza, M.; Takaijudin, H. Performance investigation of
a solar still having polythene film cover and black painted stainless steel basin integrated with a photovoltaic module–direct
current heater. Energy Environ. 2019, 30, 1521–1535. [CrossRef]
51. Riahi, A.; Yusof, K.W.; Isa, M.H.; Mahinder Singh, B.S.; Zahiraniza, M.; Ahsan, A.; Ul Mustafa, M.R.; Sapari, N.; Zahari, N.A.M.
Potable water production using two solar stills having different cover materials and fabrication costs. Environ. Prog. Sustain.
Energy 2018, 37, 584–596. [CrossRef]
52. Ahsan, A.; Imteaz, M.; Thomas, U.A.; Azmi, M.; Rahman, A.; Nik Daud, N.N. Parameters affecting the performance of a low cost
solar still. Appl. Energy 2014, 114, 924–930. [CrossRef]
53. Syuhada, N.; Ahsan, A.; Thomas, U.A.; Imteaz, M.; Ghazali, A.H. A low cost solar still for pure water production. J. Food Agric.
Environ. 2013, 11, 990–994.
54. Murugavel, K.K.; Sivakumar, S.; Ahmed, J.R.; Chockalingam, K.K.S.K.; Srithar, K. Single basin double slope solar still with
minimum basin depth and energy storing materials. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 514–523. [CrossRef]
55. Riahi, A.; Yusof, K.W.; Isa, M.H.; Singh, B.S.M.; Malakahmad, A.; Sapari, N.B. Experimental investigation on the performance of
four types of solar stills in Malaysia. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 567, 56–61.
56. Velmurugan, V.; Gopalakrishnan, M.; Raghu, R.; Srithar, K. Single basin solar still with fin for enhancing productivity. Energy
Convers. Manag. 2008, 49, 2602–2608. [CrossRef]
57. Sapari, N.B.; Ahmadan, N.A.M.; Riahi, A.; Orji, K.U. The performance of trapezoidal glass cover solar still during monsoon
period of tropical environment. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 567, 161–166.
58. Singh, G.; Kumar, S.; Tiwari, G.N. Design, fabrication and performance evaluation of a hybrid photovoltaic thermal (PVT) double
slope active solar still. Desalination 2011, 277, 399–406. [CrossRef]
59. Jasrotia, S.; Kansal, A.; Kishore, V.V.N. Application of solar energy for water supply and sanitation in Arsenic affected rural areas:
A study for Kaudikasa village, India. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 37, 389–393. [CrossRef]
60. Phadatare, M.K.; Verma, S.K. Influence of water depth on internal heat and mass transfer in a plastic solar still. Desalination 2007,
217, 267–275. [CrossRef]
61. Taamneh, Y.; Taamneh, M.M. Performance of pyramid-shaped solar still: Experimental study. Desalination 2012, 291, 65–68.
[CrossRef]
62. Ahsan, A.; Fukuhara, T. Mass and heat transfer model of Tubular Solar Still. Sol. Energy 2012, 84, 1147–1156. [CrossRef]
63. Ismail, B.I. Design and performance of a transportable hemispherical solar still. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 145–150. [CrossRef]
64. Muthu Manokar, A.; Prince Wiston, D.; Kabeel, A.E.; El-Agouz, S.A.; Sathyamurthy, R.; Arunkumar, T.; Madhu, B.; Ahsan, A.
Integrated PV/T solar still- A mini-review. Desalination 2018, 435, 259–267. [CrossRef]
65. Parsa, S.M. Reliability of thermal desalination (solar stills) for water/wastewater treatment in light of COVID-19 (novel coron-
avirus “SARS-CoV-2”) pandemic: What should consider? Desalination 2021, 512, 115106. [CrossRef]
66. Tiwari, G.N.; Suneja, S. Performanc evaluation of an inverted absorber solar still. Energy Convers. Manag. 1998, 39, 173–180.
[CrossRef]
67. Malik, M.A.S.; Tiwari, G.N.; Kumar, A.; Sodha, M.S. Solar Distillation; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1982.
68. Toure, S.; Meukam, P. A numerial model and experimental investigation for a solar still in climate conditions in Abidjan (Cote
d’Ivoire). Renew. Energy 1997, 11, 319–330. [CrossRef]
69. Al-Qadami, E.H.H.; Abdurrasheed, A.S.; Zahiraniza, M.; Amran, M.Y.H.; Yusof, K.W.; Ahsan, A. Productivity enhancement of a
double slope solar still coupled with a solar system. J. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 21, 255–263. [CrossRef]
70. Palpandi, K.; Prem Raj, R. Performance test on solar still for various TDS water and phase change materials. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci.
Eng. Technol. 2015, 4, 451–461.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 19 of 20

71. Kumar, S.; Tiwari, G.N. Life cycle cost analysis of single slope hybrid (PV/T) active solar still. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 1995–2004.
[CrossRef]
72. Sivakumar, V.; Ganapathy Sundaram, E. Experimental studies on quality of desalinated water derived from single slope passive
solar still. Desalination Water Treat. 2016, 57, 27458–27468. [CrossRef]
73. Vinoth Kumar, K.; Kasturi Bai, R. Performance study on solar still with enhanced condensation. Desalination 2008, 230, 51–61.
[CrossRef]
74. El-Agouz, S.A. Experimental investigation of stepped solar still with continuous water circulation. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014,
86, 186–193. [CrossRef]
75. Mashaly, A.F.; Alazba, A.A.; Al-Awaadh, A.M. Assessing the performance of solar desalination system to approach near-ZLD
under hyper arid environment. Desalination Water Treat. 2016, 57, 12019–12036. [CrossRef]
76. World Health Organization. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, 3rd ed.; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
77. Azhari, A.W.; Sopian, K.; Zaharim, A.; Al Ghoul, M. A new approach for predicting solar radiation in tropical environment using
satellite images—Case study of Malaysia. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2008, 4, 373–378.
78. Holiday Weather. Malaysia Weather Overview. Available online: https://www.holiday-weather.com/country/malaysia
(accessed on 17 January 2020).
79. Rajaseenivasan, T.; Srithar, K. Performance investigation on solar still with circular and square fins in basin with CO2 mitigation
and economic analysis. Desalination 2016, 380, 66–74. [CrossRef]
80. World Health Organization. Guideline for Drinking-Water Quality, 4th Edition Incorporating the First Addendum; WHO Library
Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
81. Ahsan, A.; Rahman, A.; Shanableh, A.; Nik Daud, N.N.; Mohammed, T.A.; Mabrouk, A.N.A. Life cycle cost analysis of a
sustainable solar water distillation technique. Desalination Water Treat. 2013, 51, 7412–7419. [CrossRef]
82. Ahsan, A.; Imteaz, M.; Rahman, A.; Yusuf, B.; Fukuhara, T. Design, fabrication and performance analysis of an improved solar
still. Desalination 2012, 292, 105–112. [CrossRef]
83. Al-Garni, A.Z. Productivity enhancement of solar still using water heater and cooling fan. J. Sol. Energy Eng. Trans. ASME 2012,
134, 031006. [CrossRef]
84. Kabeel, A.E.; Khalil, A.; Omara, Z.M.; Younes, M.M. Theoretical and experimental parametric study of modified stepped solar
still. Desalination 2012, 289, 12–20. [CrossRef]
85. Rahbar, N.; Esfahani, J.A. Experimental study of a novel portable solar still by utilizing the heat pipe and thermoelectric module.
Desalination 2012, 284, 55–61. [CrossRef]
86. El-Sebaii, A.A. Effect of Wind Speed on Active and Passive Solar Stills. Energy Convers. Manag. 2004, 45, 1187–1204. [CrossRef]
87. Zurigat, Y.H.; Abu-Arabi, M.K. Modelling and performance analysis of a regenerative solar desalination unit. Appl. Therm. Eng.
2004, 24, 1061–1072. [CrossRef]
88. El-Bahi, A.; Inan, D. A solar still with minimum inclination, coupled to an outside condenser. Desalination 1999, 123, 79–83.
[CrossRef]
89. Akash, B.A.; Mohsen, M.S.; Nayfeh, W. Experimental study of the basin type solar still under local climate conditions. Energy
Convers. Manag. 2000, 41, 883–890. [CrossRef]
90. Tiwari, G.N. Feasibility study of solar distillation plants in South Pacific countries. Desalination 1991, 82, 233–241. [CrossRef]
91. Moustafa, S.M.A.; Brusewitz, G.H.; Farmer, D.M. Direct use of solar energy for water desalination. Sol. Energy 1979, 22, 141–148.
[CrossRef]
92. A1-Hayeka, I.; Omar, O.B. The effect of using different designs of solar stills on water distillation. Desalination 2004, 169, 121–127.
[CrossRef]
93. Kamal, W.A. A theoretical and experimental study of the basin-type solar still under the Arabian Gulf climatic conditions. Sol.
Wind Technol. 1988, 5, 147–157. [CrossRef]
94. Velmurugan, V.; Kumaran, S.S.; Prabhu, V.N.; Srithar, K. Productivity enhancement of stepped solar still performance analysis.
Therm. Sci. 2008, 12, 153–163. [CrossRef]
95. Kabeel, A.E. Performance of solar still with a concave wick evaporation surface. Energy 2009, 34, 1504–1509. [CrossRef]
96. Akash, A.B.; Mohsen, M.S.; Osta, O.; Elayan, Y. Experimental evaluation of a single basin solar still using different absorbing
materials. Renew. Energy 1998, 14, 307–310. [CrossRef]
97. Adio, S.A.; Osowade, E.A.; Muritala, A.O.; Fadairo, A.A.; Oladepo, K.T.; Obayopo, S.O.; Fase, P.O. Solar distillation of impure
water from four different water sources under the southwestern Nigerian climate. Drink. Water Eng. Sci. 2021, 14, 81–94.
[CrossRef]
98. Ali Samee, M.; Mirza, U.K.; Majeed, T.; Ahmad, N. Design and performance of a simple single basin solar still. Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 2007, 11, 543–549. [CrossRef]
99. Rajaseenivasan, T.; Elango, T.; Kalidasa Murugavel, K. Comparative study of double basin and single basin solar stills. Desalination
2013, 309, 27–31. [CrossRef]
100. Gnanaraj, S.J.P.; Ramachandran, S.; Christopher, D.S. Enhancing the design to optimize the performance of double basin solar
still. Desalination 2017, 411, 112–123. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9452 20 of 20

101. Panchal, H.; Sathyamurthy, R.; Pandey, A.K.; Kumar, M.; Arunkumar, T.; Patel, D.K. Annual performance analysis of a single-basin
passive solar still coupled with evacuated tubes: Comprehensive study in climate conditions of Mahesana, Gujarat. Int. J. Ambient
Energy 2019, 40, 229–242. [CrossRef]
102. Winfred Rufuss, D.D.; Iniyan, S.; Suganthi, L.; Pa, D. Nanoparticles enhanced phase change material (NPCM) as heat storage in
solar still application for productivity enhancement. Energy Procedia 2017, 141, 45–49. [CrossRef]
103. Velmurugan, V.; Deenadayalan, C.K.; Vinod, H.; Srithar, K. Desalination of effluent using fin type solar still. Energy 2008, 33,
1719–1727. [CrossRef]
104. El-Sebaii, A.A.; Ramadan, M.R.I.; Aboul-Enein, S.; Salem, N. Thermal performance of a single-basin solar still integrated with a
shallow solar pond. Energy Convers. Manag. 2008, 49, 2839–2848. [CrossRef]
105. Omara, Z.; Eltawil, M.A. Hybrid of solar dish concentrator, new boiler and simple solar collector for brackish water desalination.
Desalination 2013, 326, 62–68. [CrossRef]
106. Khairat Dawood, M.M.; Shehata, A.I.; Kabeel, A.E.; Elharidi, A.M.; Abdelsalam Taha, A.; Bayoumi, S.; Abdalla, M.A. Increasing
the freshwater productivity of a solar still loaded with CuO nanofluids using vibration motion and cover cooling techniques. Int.
J. Energy Res. 2021, 45, 9099–9115. [CrossRef]
107. Essa, F.A.; Omara, Z.M.; Abdullah, A.S.; Shanmugan, S.; Panchal, H.; Kabeel, A.E.; Sathyamurthy, R.; Alawee, W.H.; Manokar,
A.M.; Elsheikh, A.H. Wall-suspended trays inside stepped distiller with Al2 O3 /paraffin wax mixture and vapor suction:
Experimental implementation. J. Energy Storage 2020, 32, 102008. [CrossRef]
108. Abdullah, A.S.; Essa, F.A.; Omara, Z.M.; Rashid, Y.; Hadj-Taieb, L.; Abdelaziz, G.B.; Kabeel, A.E. Rotating-drum solar still with
enhanced evaporation and condensation techniques: Comprehensive study. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 199, 112024. [CrossRef]
109. Esfahani, J.A.; Rahbar, N.; Lavvaf, M. Utilization of thermoelectric cooling in a portable active solar still—An experimental study
on winter days. Desalination 2011, 269, 198–205. [CrossRef]
110. Nazari, S.; Safarzadeh, H.; Bahiraei, M. Experimental and analytical investigations of productivity, energy and exergy efficiency
of a single slope solar still enhanced with thermoelectric channel and nanofluid. Renew. Energy 2019, 135, 729–744. [CrossRef]
111. Sadeghi, G.; Nazari, S. Retrofitting a thermoelectric-based solar still integrated with an evacuated tube collector utilizing an
antibacterial-magnetic hybrid nanofluid. Desalination 2021, 500, 114871. [CrossRef]
112. Shoeibi, S.; Rahbar, N.; Abedini Esfahlani, A.; Kargarsharifabad, H. Application of simultaneous thermoelectric cooling and
heating to improve the performance of a solar still: An experimental study and exergy analysis. Appl. Energy 2020, 263, 114581.
[CrossRef]
113. Shoeibi, S.; Rahbar, N.; Abedini Esfahlani, A.; Kargarsharifabad, H. Improving the thermoelectric solar still performance by using
nanofluids– Experimental study, thermodynamic modeling and energy matrices analysis. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021,
47, 101339. [CrossRef]
114. The Environmental Quality (Sewage and Industrial Effluents) Regulations (EQR) 1979: National Water Quality Standards for
Surface Water in Malaysia, Updated in 2006. Available online: http://www.wepa-db.net/policies/law/malaysia/eq_surface.htm
(accessed on 10 January 2019).
115. Kharchenko, V.; Panchenko, V.; Tikhonov, P.V.; Vasant, P. Cogenerative PV thermal modules of different design for autonomous
heat and electricity supply. In Handbook of Research on Renewable Energy and Electric Resources for Sustainable Rural Development; IGI
Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 86–119.
116. Praveen Kumar, B.; Prince Winston, D.; Pounraj, P.; Muthu Manokar, A.; Sathyamurthy, R.; Kabeel, A.E. Experimental investigation
on hybrid PV/T active solar still with effective heating and cover cooling method. Desalination 2018, 435, 140–151. [CrossRef]
117. Pounraj, P.; Prince Winston, D.; Kabeel, A.E.; Praveen Kumar, B.; Muthu Manokar, A.; Sathyamurthy, R.; Christabel, S.C.
Experimental investigation on Peltier based hybrid PV/T active solar still for enhancing the overall performance. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2018, 168, 371–381. [CrossRef]
118. Rakhmania Kamyab, H.; Yuzir, M.A.; Abdullah, N.; Quan, L.M.; Riyadi, F.A.; Marzouki, R. Recent Applications of the Electroco-
agulation Process on Agro-Based Industrial Wastewater: A Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1985. [CrossRef]