Next Article in Journal
An Efficient Framework to Estimate the State of Charge Profiles of Hydro Units for Large-Scale Zonal and Nodal Pricing Models
Next Article in Special Issue
Power Transmission Lines: Worldwide Research Trends
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Study on the Thermal Performance of 3D-Printed Enclosing Structures
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/en15124232
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

The Effects of Soiling and Frequency of Optimal Cleaning of PV Panels in Palestine

by
Ramez Abdallah
1,2,*,
Adel Juaidi
1,
Salameh Abdel-Fattah
1,
Mahmoud Qadi
1,
Montaser Shadid
1,
Aiman Albatayneh
3,
Hüseyin Çamur
2,
Amos García-Cruz
4 and
Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro
5,*
1
Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology, An-Najah National University, Nablus P.O. Box 7, Palestine
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Near East University, Nicosia 99138, Cyprus
3
Energy Engineering Department, German Jordanian University, P.O. Box 35247, Amman 11180, Jordan
4
Department of Agronomy, University of Almeria, ceiA3, 04120 Almeria, Spain
5
Department of Engineering, University of Almeria, ceiA3, 04120 Almeria, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(12), 4232; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124232
Submission received: 25 April 2022 / Revised: 18 May 2022 / Accepted: 7 June 2022 / Published: 8 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Challenges in Renewable Energy Systems and Electricity Generation: Market, Economics, and Technology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The performance of photovoltaic (PV) solar panels is dependent on certain factors, such as dust effects. Even though Palestine’s energy issues are well-known, no research has been undertaken on the soiling effect on solar energy generation in Palestine’s climatic circumstances. The study’s findings can aid Palestine’s efforts to achieve long-term energy sustainability and solar energy use. Outdoor research was conducted in Tulkarm, Palestine, to explore the impact of dust on PV systems. The current study examined the impact of dust accumulation based on the Mediterranean climate. To accomplish this, a one-year experiment was conducted from 1 January to 31 December 2021. An 85-kW PV power plant at Tulkarm was utilized in the study. Knowing the efficiency reduction over time will aid in minimizing cleaning expenses by selecting the most appropriate cleaning interval. The results concluded that in January, February, November, and December, there will be a two-month cleaning period, monthly cleaning in March and October, as well as two weeks of cleaning in April and May. It may also be concluded that the plant should be cleaned weekly throughout the months of June, July, August, and September. This recommendation is necessary to maintain the PV panel plant operating at peak efficiency.

1. Introduction

The renewable energy industry is improving continuously and there is a big trend all over the world to use renewable energy to generate electricity and eliminate the need for burning oil and fossil fuel which adversely impacts the environment and, ultimately, human living conditions [1,2,3,4].
Interest in renewable energy is increasing rapidly due to the rising population on earth and the accelerated demand and use of energy. that the use of non-renewable energies is detrimental to nature when fossil fuels are burned causing emissions of gases like CO2 and other harmful gases, which is related to dangerous problems such as global warming and air pollution. Therefore green clean energy like solar energy is an excellent alternative source, especially where it has many advantages, such as no major damaging effects on the environment, it is safe and cheap, and, finally, it is lasting [5,6,7,8].
The solar energy that hits the earth in one hour is nearly sufficient for one year of the Earth’s requirements for energy but, unfortunately, some of this energy is lost when it is absorbed by some solid particles or reflected by water vapor. Additionally, for the solar panels, some of the radiation is absorbed by deposits and dust accumulation, which reduces the efficiency of the PV panels and it is from this perspective, that the idea of cleaning the PV panels originated [4,9,10].
Renewable energy created by PV panels is an efficient solution to the ever-increasing need for energy while also lowering hazardous emissions and the environmental implications that come with it [4,11]. According to REN21, the total worldwide solar PV capacity reached 627 GW in 2019, up from less than 23 GW only ten years ago, and an increase of 115 GW within one year from 2018, as seen in Figure 1 [12]. Thus, there is a trend toward the PV plants industry as a source of electricity since it is friendly to nature [9,10].
Solar energy as an investment is very efficient but it is not possible everywhere since the productivity of energy depends on the number of sunshine hours and the number of rainy days in a particular location, and because of this, the Middle East and North Africa have high productivity in the sector of solar energy [4,13].
Renewable energy investment is critical in Palestine since 98 percent of the country’s energy is imported, which limits and controls a significant portion of the Palestinian economy. It is also critical for a country with a dependency on the electrical industry [14,15].
Palestine, in most regions, is exposed to around 3000 sunshine hours annually and has an annual average of 5.4 kW h/ m 2 a day of solar radiation. This is a very good amount that can provide a good profit and dependable source for the electricity sector in Palestine [15,16,17]. Figure 2 shows the map of the West Bank and Gaza in Palestine.
In Palestine, PV panels were not widely used except in the last few years when thermal solar panels became so common in Palestine. Thermal panels are used for converting sunlight to heat while PV solar panels are used to receive sunlight and convert it into electricity. The solar PV panels are installed on the rooftops of buildings and also in the open wide places on the ground [18,19,20].
Main factors that affect the performance of PV modules include temperature, dust deposition, relative humidity, solar irradiance, wind movement, tilt angle, and shading [21,22,23,24].
Shading is one of the most important factors that affect the efficiency of PV panels. Shading includes anything that prevents the sun from reaching the cells in the PV module such as trees. and buildings [25,26]. Uniform shading of 50% on PV panels reduces the energy output by more than 60% which is a very high reduction in the outpower [25].
After temperature and solar radiation, dust deposition is the most significant factor that can affect a PV module’s efficiency. The impact of dust is significantly dependent on the geographic location and local circumstances. As a result, determining a numerical figure for its negative effect is challenging [4,27,28,29].
A variety of technologies and procedures have been used to clean solar PV devices and reduce the negative effect of soiling on PV efficiency. The most common cleaning methods are manual cleaning, robotic systems, automated water sprinkler systems, and self-cleaning methods [4,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Manual cleaning is a simple way of cleaning modules, especially on rooftops of houses and small-scale projects but it is not effective in large-scale projects. Manual cleaning is done by washing the surface of panels with a cloth or wiper in combination with water or other cleaning liquids and is a simple technique that does not involve high investment costs, however, it may damage the PV modules during the cleaning process because of unskilled workers [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40].
The robotic system is considered the most in-demand cleaning technology, with waterless and water-based robot cleaning both suitable for large-scale solar plants, with the ability to remove hard dust and deposits [36,37,38,39,40,41]. The waterless method has a lower operational cost since it does not consume water [4,41]. Self-cleaning is a modification of PV modules by adding a coating of Nanofilm on the surface of the cells, there is no operator needed but the system has low reliability [42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. The automated water sprinkler system uses water to automatically wash the solar panels by nozzles connected to the panels so it is like artificial rain, the system is easy to install and the cycle of cleaning can be changed [49,50,51,52,53].
Figure 3 shows the main cleaning methods used for PV panels, while robotic cleaning could be considered an automated method or an independent major method [4,49].
When choosing the best suitable cleaning method, in general, researchers recommend that manual or water sprinkler cleaning techniques should be used in the small PV stations, where the power production of panels in the system is up to 10 kW, while the robotic cleaning method and the coating is recommended for use in large PV stations where the power generation is more than 10 kW [54,55,56].
Many researchers are working on experimental studies to investigate the optimum cleaning method and frequency, with the cleaning frequency depending on the amount of dust, the presence of rainfall, and the surface of the PV panel where coated modules may be affected by some cleaning processes [23,25].
Del Pero et al. concluded that rain has a certain positive impact on the yearly performance of PV systems, with the average value during the spring/summer season ranging from 2% to 10%. Based on this context; such gain is greater than the more convective rainfalls that occur in the spring and summer seasons, which are characterized by intense precipitation and frequent alternation with partially-sunny conditions [3].
This scientific study was carried out in Tulkarm, West Bank, Palestine, under outdoor circumstances to see how dust accumulation impacts the panel’s performance. For the whole year of the research, the cleaning efficacy of the system was examined by cleaning panels for various durations of time and leaving other panels uncleaned. Every one week, two weeks, one month, two months, and six months, the panels were cleaned. The output power data was then studied by comparing the power production of the weekly cleaned panels to that of other panels cleaned for different lengths of time and the uncleaned panels throughout the year, with promising findings.

2. Literature Review

Several studies on photovoltaic efficiency have been conducted in recent decades. Even though the PV system’s performance has increased due to several improvements, environmental elements such as soil deposition, bird droppings, snow, and other debris that fall on PV panel surfaces cause inefficient performance. To achieve maximum efficiency and energy yield, an in-depth investigation of the impact of dust on solar panels is conducted. Table 1 shows the effect of dust in various locations around the world based on experimental studies, and it is clear that dust can cause a vital drop in the efficiency of PV modules, especially in desert climates.
Therefore, the cleaning process for PV panels is essential to recover the drop in PV performance. The concept of cleaning is related to some important factors, first, the periodic time of cleaning to obtain the required effect with the least amount of money and effort. Second, the method of cleaning, where the safety for both humans and panels should be taken into account. Moreover, the cleaning process itself is kept simple and efficient, and, naturally, there is rainfall, gravity, and wind speed that can help in the cleaning process [4,79,80,81].
Many studies have been conducted on the best way to clean photovoltaic panels, including determining the optimum cleaning period that provides the best performance at the lowest cost. Many conditions must be considered while analyzing the results, including rainfall, the photovoltaic panel location, ambient temperature, and relative humidity [82,83,84,85,86,87].
In the Middle East region, the worst-case scenario for solar panels is due to the large amounts of dust and the continuous presence of sandstorms, with the efficiency of solar panels reduced by up to 80% [88,89,90,91].
Globally, the cleaning effect of solar panels varies from one region to another, but it is most effective in desert areas [92,93,94,95]. Therefore, this should motivate researchers to conduct experimental studies to obtain accurate conclusions about the optimum cleaning method and period for each geographical region.
Recently, there has been a lot of focus on improving Palestine’s energy sector by conducting experimental studies to help and improve the sector’s ability to make the best use of the world’s largest renewable energy source, the sun [96,97,98]. This study attempts to be one of the studies that can help Palestine make better use of solar energy.

3. Methodology

The dust impact is related to the air pollutants in the particular geographical region where the PV unit is installed. The city of Tulkarm was chosen to investigate the effect of soiling on the PV efficiency in Palestine and to determine the ideal time for cleaning; the location is displayed in Figure 1. Planning weekly or monthly cleaning cycles necessitates a thorough understanding of the climatic and environmental variables in the area. An experimental analysis will be undertaken in this study to compare performance efficiency.

3.1. Location of the Study

The investigation was conducted in a Mediterranean environment in Northern Palestine, in the city of Tulkarm (32.370 N, 35.108 E, 224 m) with global horizontal irradiation (GHI) of 5.45 kWh/m2 at Ellar village in Tulkarm. Summers are dry and hot, and winters are wet and chilly in this Mediterranean environment. Indeed, the majority of Palestine receives roughly 3000 h of solar radiation each year, with typical solar radiation levels ranging from 5.4 to 6.0 kWh/m2.day [15,99]. Climate characteristics in Tulkarm city in the year 2021 are displayed in Table 2.

3.2. Description of a PV System

The experimental research of PV cleaning was chosen at a location in Tulkarm, with a one-year length beginning on 1 January and ending on 31 December 2021. The PV power plant that will be utilized in the study at Tulkarm is an 85-kW project with 330 Wp Trina polycrystalline panels with a 29° tilt angle, four 25-kW inverters, and 64 PV modules for each inverter. The characteristics of the (Trina Solar 330) utilized in this investigation are shown in Table 3 under standard test conditions.

3.3. The Procedure of the Experimental Study

The study was conducted on six groups of panels, each of which consisted of three modules with a different cleaning period: one week, two weeks, one month, two months, and six months, and the sixth group did not clean for the whole year. The first three PV panels on the right in the upper row were cleaned once a week, the next three panels on the left were cleaned once every two weeks, the next three PV modules were cleaned once a month, and the next three modules were cleaned once every two months, the next three modules were cleaned once every six months, and the final three PV modules were left uncleaned for the entire year as indicated in Figure 4.
In the beginning, all the PV Panels involved in the study were cleaned manually. Manual cleaning was conducted with water just before sunset, weekly readings of output PV power for each group of panels were taken, as well as the average power generated by one module was recorded. People involved in PV cleaning were taught the cleaning techniques so they would use the same procedure to reduce the human aspect. However, from January to December 2021, all of the PV panels involved in this research were subjected to the same unstable weather conditions.
Throughout the research, software named the Monitoring-Solar Edge was used to measure the power output of each PV panel and compare the output differences between groups. Table 4 shows the detailed power production of the panels participating in the study throughout the study year.
Figure 5 below shows the PV system used in this study.
The percentage difference in power was calculated according to the following Equation [61]:
Δ P = P c − P p c P c × 100 %
where Pc is the output power of the PV panels cleaned weekly, Ppc is the output power of the PV panels cleaned for different periods (weekly, two weeks, monthly, two months, six months, and uncleaned for the entire year), and ∆P is the percent difference between the two panels’ power.

4. Results and Discussion

The results of power generation for the PV panels cleaned at different times are shown in this section; the cleaned panels with varied periods represent the panels cleaned at different periods (weekly, two weeks, monthly, two months, six months, and uncleaned panels for the whole year of study). The measurements cover the entire year of 2021, from 1 January to 31 December. The effect of the cleaning procedure is assessed by comparing the average power of the weekly cleaned and cleaned panels over different periods.
For the entire year, the output power differential between the weekly and two weekly cleaned PV panels did not exceed 1.8%, as illustrated in Figure 6. As a result, the power loss is unimpressive, according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, which specify that a reduction of 2% in power efficiency necessitates cleaning. Because of the cleaning impact of rain during the winter season, it can also be concluded that the highest loss occurs in the summer months and the lowest occurs in the winter months.
For the entire year, the output power differential between the weekly and monthly cleaned PV panels is about 2.3%, as illustrated in Figure 7. As a result, a monthly cleaning operation may be sufficient to keep the system in good working order without incurring additional costs. Because the percentage difference did not exceed the operational manual instructions value of 2% in January, February, March, October, November, and December, there was no need for monthly cleaning because the losses were 0.85%, 1.06%, 1.22%, 1.34%, 1.10%, and 0.79%, respectively. However, the operational manual instructions value was exceeded in April, May, June, July, August, and September.
As shown in Figure 8, the output power differential between weekly cleaned and two months cleaned PV panels is approximately 4.73% over the duration of the year. That is considered a high percentage difference of power. The percentage difference in power was 1.72% for January and February combined, and 1.67% for November and December combined, which is still less than 2%. However, it was more than 2% for the remaining months, with 5.01% for March and April combined, 6.21% for May and June, 6.93% for July and August, and 4.74% for September and November, and these numbers are regarded as excessive according to the manufacturer’s specifications.
As shown in Figure 9, the output power differential between weekly cleaned and two months cleaned PV panels is approximately 9.11% over the duration of the year. That is considered a very high percentage difference of power. It may be determined that the percentage difference in power between the first and second halves of the year was around 9%.
As shown in Figure 10, the output power differential between weekly cleaned and yearly uncleaned panels is approximately 13%. That is considered a very high percentage difference of power. Finally, due to the ideal weather conditions and frequent rain in Tulkarm city during the winter season, the percentage difference between the panels that are cleaned weekly and the panels that had longer cleaning intervals was unremarkable in January, February, November, and December. In the spring and autumn seasons, however, the weather is dustier than in winter, but there is some rain. As a result, the power losses were slightly higher than in the winter months. However, given the dry and dusty weather conditions with little rainfall throughout the summer season, a major decline in power output might result in considerable financial losses with the 256 panels on site.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Despite the fact that Palestine’s energy challenges are well-known, no study of the soiling effect on solar energy generation in Palestine’s climatic conditions has been conducted. The findings of this study can help Palestine’s attempts to achieve long-term energy sustainability and solar energy utilization. Outdoor research was established in Tulkarm city to investigate the influence of dust accumulation on the performance of PV systems in Palestine. The influence of dust deposition in the Mediterranean climate was investigated in the present study.
To accomplish this, a one-year experiment was conducted, and the findings led to the conclusion that when compared to weekly cleaned panels, keeping the PV panels uncleaned for a year from 1 January to 31 December 2021, resulted in a 13.1% loss in power, and six months of unclean panels from January to June and July to December resulted in a power differential of 8.98% and 9.23%, respectively. While, two consecutive months of uncleaned panels in January and February, March and April, May and June, July and August, September and October, and November and December resulted in 1.72%, 5.01%, 6.21%, 6.93%, 4.74%, and 1.67% difference in power, respectively.
In January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December, leaving the PV panels unclean for a month resulted in average losses of 0.85%, 1.06%, 1.22%, 2.12%, 2.94%, 3.31%, 3.53%, 3.67%, 3.42%, 1.34%, 1.10%, 0.79%, respectively. Finally, cleaning PV panels every two weeks versus weekly cleaning resulted in a 0.55%, 0.85%, 1.05%, 1.30%, 1.70%, 2.85%, 3.10%, 3.22%, 3.05%, 1.07%, 0.91%, and 0.51% reduction in power generation in January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December, respectively.
According to the operating manual, a 2% decrease in power efficiency necessitates a cleaning operation for the entire plant. As a result, knowing the efficiency reduction over time will aid in minimizing cleaning expenses by selecting the most appropriate cleaning interval. Therefore, in January, February, November, and December, there will be a two-month cleaning period, and monthly cleaning in March and October, as well as two weeks of cleaning in April and May. It may also be concluded that the plant should be cleaned weekly throughout the months of June, July, August, and September. This recommendation is necessary in order to maintain the PV panel plant operating at peak efficiency.
It might also be recommended that further studies be carried out at intervals of more than a year and that these experiments be carried out in a number of Palestinian cities. In addition, the influence of several parameters on soiling, such as temperature, humidity, wind speed, and PV tilt angle should be investigated. Moreover, some environmental data, such as air quality conditions, should be investigated so that the effect of these elements can be related to cleaning frequency. The natural degradation of PV efficiency is also a worry that should be explored. Photovoltaic cleaning units require water consumption and have other economic consequences. Therefore, it is useful to study the economic cost of the different cleaning methods and determine which method is better and if the cost of cleaning is commensurate with the amount of energy gained as a result.

Author Contributions

R.A. and A.J. conceived of the idea and wrote the article; A.J. and R.A. analyzed the data; R.A., A.J. and F.M.-A. wrote the paper. F.M.-A. and H.Ç. supervised the research and revised the manuscript. M.Q. and M.S. did the experiments. All authors contributed to the structure and aims of the manuscript, paper drafting, editing, and review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities under the program “Proyectos de I + D de Generacion de Conocimiento” of the national program for the generation of scientific and technological knowledge and strengthening of the R + D + I system through grant number PGC2018-098813-B-C33 and from UAL-FEDER 2020, Ref. UAL2020-TIC-A2080.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the An Najah National University, University of Almeria; Near East University, and German Jordanian University for facilitating this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Banos, R.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F.; Montoya, F.G.; Gil, C.; Alcayde, A.; Gómez, J. Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1753–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Juaidi, A.; Anayah, F.; Assaf, R.; Hasan, A.A.; Monna, S.; Herzallah, L.; Abdallah, R.; Dutournié, P.; Jeguirim, M. An overview of renewable energy strategies and policies in Palestine: Strengths and challenges. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022, 68, 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Del Pero, C.; Aste, N.; Leonforte, F. The effect of rain on photovoltaic systems. Renew. Energy 2021, 179, 1803–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Salamah, T.; Ramahi, A.; Alamara, K.; Juaidi, A.; Abdallah, R.; Abdelkareem, M.A.; Amer, E.C.; Olabi, A.G. Effect of dust and methods of cleaning on the performance of solar PV module for different climate regions: Comprehensive review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 827, 154050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Caron, S.; Garrido, J.; Ballestrín, J.; Sutter, F.; Röger, M.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. A comparative analysis of opto-thermal figures of merit for high temperature solar thermal absorber coatings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 154, 111818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dai, H.; Mamkhezri, J.; Arshed, N.; Javaid, A.; Salem, S.; Khan, Y.A. Role of Energy Mix in Determining Climate Change Vulnerability in G7 Countries. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Szyba, M.; Mikulik, J. Energy Production from Biodegradable Waste as an Example of the Circular Economy. Energies 2022, 15, 1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Juaidi, A.; Montoya, F.G.; Ibrik, I.H.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. An overview of renewable energy potential in Palestine. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 943–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fernández-García, A.; Juaidi, A.; Sutter, F.; Martínez-Arcos, L.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Solar reflector materials degradation due to the sand deposited on the backside protective paints. Energies 2018, 11, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Hernandez-Escobedo, Q.; Rodríguez-García, E.; Saldaña-Flores, R.; Fernández-García, A.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Solar energy resource assessment in Mexican states along the Gulf of Mexico. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 216–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Perea-Moreno, A.J.; García-Cruz, A.; Novas, N.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Rooftop analysis for solar flat plate collector assessment to achieving sustainability energy. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 148, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. REN21. Renewables 2020 Global Status Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.ren21.net/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/gsr_2020_full_report_en.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2022).
  13. Castellano, N.N.; Parra, J.A.G.; Valls-Guirado, J.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Optimal displacement of photovoltaic array’s rows using a novel shading model. Appl. Energy 2015, 144, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abdallah, R.; Juaidi, A.; Assad, M.; Salameh, T.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Energy recovery from waste tires using pyrolysis: Palestine as case of study. Energies 2020, 13, 1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Abdallah, R.; Juaidi, A.; Abdel-Fattah, S.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Estimating the optimum tilt angles for south-facing surfaces in Palestine. Energies 2020, 13, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Monna, S.; Juaidi, A.; Abdallah, R.; Salameh, T. Sustainable energy retrofitting for residential buildings in Palestine, a simulation based approach. In Proceedings of the 2021 12th International Renewable Engineering Conference (IREC), Amman, Jordan, 14–15 April 2021; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  17. Abdallah, R.; Natsheh, E.; Juaidi, A.; Samara, S.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. A Multi-Level World Comprehensive Neural Network Model for Maximum Annual Solar Irradiation on a Flat Surface. Energies 2020, 13, 6422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Monna, S.; Juaidi, A.; Abdallah, R.; Itma, M. A Comparative Assessment for the Potential Energy Production from PV Installation on Residential Buildings. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Monna, S.; Juaidi, A.; Abdallah, R.; Albatayneh, A.; Dutournie, P.; Jeguirim, M. Towards sustainable energy retrofitting, a simulation for potential energy use reduction in residential buildings in Palestine. Energies 2021, 14, 3876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. Global Photovoltaic Power Potential by Country; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hussin, N.S.M.; Amin, N.A.M.; Safar, M.J.A.; Zulkafli, R.S.; Majid, M.S.A.; Rojan, M.A.; Zaman, I. Performance factors of the photovoltaic system: A review. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 225, 03020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Usman, Z.; Tah, J.; Abanda, H.; Nche, C. A critical appraisal of pv-systems’ performance. Buildings 2020, 10, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hendriana, D.; Sinaga, E.F.; Djajadi, A.K.T. Experimental Testbed and Performance Evaluation for Rooftop Solar PV System and Generator Set. In Proceedings of the 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 26 March–10 April 2019; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mani, M.; Pillai, R. Impact of dust on solar photovoltaic (PV) performance: Research status, challenges and recommendations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 3124–3131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bana, S.; Saini, R.P. Experimental investigation on power output of different photovoltaic array configurations under uniform and partial shading scenarios. Energy 2017, 127, 438–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dwivedi, L.K.; Yadav, P.; Saket, R.K. MATLAB based modelling and maximum power point tracking (MPPT) method for photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2016, 3. [Google Scholar]
  27. John, J.J.; Warade, S.; Tamizhmani, G.; Kottantharayil, A. Study of soiling loss on photovoltaic modules with artificially deposited dust of different gravimetric densities and compositions collected from different locations in India. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2015, 6, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kabir, E.; Kumar, P.; Kumar, S.; Adelodun, A.A.; Kim, K.-H. Solar energy: Potential and future prospects. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 894–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kaldellis, J.; Fragos, P. Ash deposition impact on the energy performance of photovoltaic generators. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khadka, N.; Bista, A.; Adhikari, B.; Shrestha, A.; Bista, D.; Adhikary, B. Current practices of solar photovoltaic panel cleaning system and future prospects of machine learning implementation. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 135948–135962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bosman, L.B.; Leon-Salas, W.D.; Hutzel, W.; Soto, E.A. PV system predictive maintenance: Challenges, current approaches, and opportunities. Energies 2020, 13, 1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Şevik, S.; Aktaş, A. Performance enhancing and improvement studies in a 600 kW solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant; manual and natural cleaning, rainwater harvesting and the snow load removal on the PV arrays. Renew. Energy 2022, 181, 490–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alamri, H.R.; Rezk, H.; Abd-Elbary, H.; Ziedan, H.A.; Elnozahy, A. Experimental Investigation to Improve the Energy Efficiency of Solar PV Panels Using Hydrophobic SiO2 Nanomaterial. Coatings 2020, 10, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Azouzoute, A.; Zitouni, H.; El Ydrissi, M.; Hajjaj, C.; Garoum, M.; Ghennioui, A. Developing a cleaning strategy for hybrid solar plants PV/CSP: Case study for semi-arid climate. Energy 2021, 228, 120565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hudedmani, M.G.; Joshi, G.; Umayal, R.M.; Revankar, A. A comparative study of dust cleaning methods for the solar PV panels. Adv. J. Grad. Res. 2017, 1, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Hardt, M.; Martínez, D.; González, A.; Garrido, C.; Aladren, S.; Villa, J.R.; Saenz, J. HECTOR—Heliostat Cleaning Team-Oriented Robot. In Proceedings of the Solar-PACES 2011 Conference, Granada, Spain, 20–23 September 2011; pp. 20–23. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jaradat, M.A.; Tauseef, M.; Altaf, Y.; Saab, R.; Adel, H.; Yousuf, N.; Zurigat, Y. A fully portable robot system for cleaning solar panels. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISMA), Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 8–10 December 2015; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gheitasi, A.; Almaliky, A.; Albaqawi, N. Development of an automatic cleaning system for photovoltaic plants. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), Brisbane, QL, Australia, 15–18 November 2015; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hassan, M.U.; Nawaz, M.I.; Iqbal, J. Towards autonomous cleaning of photovoltaic modules: Design and realization of a robotic cleaner. In Proceedings of the 2017 First International Conference on Latest trends in Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (INTELLECT), Karachi, Pakistan, 15–16 November 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  40. Anderson, M.; Grandy, A.; Hastie, J.; Sweezey, A.; Ranky, R.; Mavroidis, C.; Markopoulos, Y. Robotic device for cleaning photovoltaic panel arrays. In Mobile Robotics: Solutions and Challenges; World Scientific: Singapore, 2010; pp. 367–377. [Google Scholar]
  41. Al Baloushi, A.; Saeed, M.; Marwan, S.; AlGghafri, S.; Moumouni, Y. Portable robot for cleaning photovoltaic system: Ensuring consistent and optimal year-round photovoltaic panel performance. In Proceedings of the 2018 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET), Dubai, Sharjah, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 6 February–5 April 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  42. Son, J.; Kundu, S.; Verma, L.K.; Sakhuja, M.; Danner, A.J.; Bhatia, C.S.; Yang, H. A practical superhydrophilic self-cleaning and antireflective surface for outdoor photovoltaic applications. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2012, 98, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. He, G.; Zhou, C.; Li, Z. Review of self-cleaning method for solar cell array. Procedia Eng. 2011, 16, 640–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Sarkın, A.S.; Ekren, N.; Sağlam, Ş. A review of anti-reflection and self-cleaning coatings on photovoltaic panels. Sol. Energy 2020, 199, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Arabatzis, I.; Todorova, N.; Fasaki, I.; Tsesmeli, C.; Peppas, A.; Li, W.X.; Zhao, Z. Photocatalytic, self-cleaning, antireflective coating for photovoltaic panels: Characterization and monitoring in real conditions. Sol. Energy 2018, 159, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Syafiq, A.; Balakrishnan, V.; Ali, M.S.; Dhoble, S.J.; Abd Rahim, N.; Omar, A. Application of transparent self-cleaning coating for photovoltaic panel: A review. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2022, 36, 100801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhong, H.; Hu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, H. TiO2/silane coupling agent composed of two layers structure: A super-hydrophilic self-cleaning coating applied in PV panels. Appl. Energy 2017, 204, 932–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Soklič, A.; Tasbihi, M.; Kete, M.; Štangar, U.L. Deposition and possible influence of a self-cleaning thin TiO2/SiO2 film on a photovoltaic module efficiency. Catal. Today 2015, 252, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kazem, H.A.; Chaichan, M.T.; Al-Waeli, A.H.; Sopian, K. A review of dust accumulation and cleaning methods for solar photovoltaic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Deb, D.; Brahmbhatt, N.L. Review of yield increase of solar panels through soiling prevention, and a proposed water-free automated cleaning solution. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 3306–3313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Haydar, J.; NourAldeen, A.; Fayad, H.; Fahs, W.; Hassan, H.A.H. A low cost automated cleaning system for photovoltaic panels. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT), Werdanye, Lebanon, 28–30 November 2018; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  52. Thomas, S.K.; Joseph, S.; Sarrop, T.S.; Haris, S.B.; Roopak, R. Solar Panel Automated Cleaning (SPAC) System. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Emerging Trends and Innovations in Engineering and Technological Research (ICETIETR), Cochin, India, 11–13 July 2018; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  53. Chanchangi, Y.N.; Ghosh, A.; Sundaram, S.; Mallick, T.K. Dust and PV Performance in Nigeria: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 121, 109704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mondal, A.K.; Bansal, K. A brief history and future aspects in automatic cleaning systems for solar photovoltaic panels. Adv. Robot. 2015, 29, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wilson, D.I. Challenges in cleaning: Recent developments and future prospects. Heat Transf. Eng. 2005, 26, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Micheli, L.; Fernández, E.F.; Muller, M.; Almonacid, F. Extracting and generating PV soiling profiles for analysis, forecasting, and cleaning optimization. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2019, 10, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Al-Badra, M.Z.; Abd-Elhady, M.S.; Kandil, H.A. A novel technique for cleaning PV panels using antistatic coating with a mechanical vibrator. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 1633–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shah, A.H.; Hassan, A.; Laghari, M.S.; Alraeesi, A. The influence of cleaning frequency of photovoltaic modules on power losses in the desert climate. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Al-Housani, M.; Bicer, Y.; Koç, M. Experimental investigations on PV cleaning of large-scale solar power plants in desert climates: Comparison of cleaning techniques for drone retrofitting. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 185, 800–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kazem, H.A.; Chaichan, M.T. The effect of dust accumulation and cleaning methods on PV panels’ outcomes based on an experimental study of six locations in Northern Oman. Sol. Energy 2019, 187, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Al-Tarawneh, A.; Ahmed, M.Z.; Al-Tarawneh, A. The Effect of Soiling and Periodic Cleaning on the Performance of Solar Power Plants in Ma’an, Jordan. Innov. Syst. Des. Eng. 2018, 9, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bunyan, H.; Ali, W.; Alnaser, M. Enhancing the Performance of Photovoltaic Panel by Proper Washing Periods in Kuwait. Smart Grid Renew. Energy 2016, 7, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Hammoud, M.; Shokr, B.; Assi, A.; Hallal, J.; Khoury, P. Effect of dust cleaning on the enhancement of the power generation of a coastal PV-power plant at Zahrani Lebanon. Sol. Energy 2019, 184, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mohamed, A.O.; Hasan, A. Effect of Dust Accumulation on Performance of Photovoltaic Solar Modules in Sahara Environment. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res. 2012, 2, 11030–11036. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hammad, B.; Al-Abed, M.; Al-Ghandoor, A.; Al-Sardeah, A.; Al-Bashir, A. Modeling and analysis of dust and temperature effects on photovoltaic systems’ performance and optimal cleaning frequency: Jordan case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 2218–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Urrejola, E.; Antonanzas, J.; Ayala, P.; Salgado, M.; Ramírez-Sagner, G.; Cortés, C.; Pino, A.; Escobar, R. Effect of soiling and sunlight exposure on the performance ratio of photovoltaic technologies in Santiago. Chile. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 114, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Naeem, M.; Mani, G.T. Cleaning frequency optimization for soiled photovoltaic modules. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 42nd Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), New Orleans, LA, USA, 14–19 June 2015; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  68. Moharram, K.A.; Abd-Elhady, M.S.; Kandil, H.A.; El-Sherif, H. Influence of cleaning using water and surfactants on the performance of photovoltaic panels. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 68, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sakarapunthip, N.; Chenvidhya, D.; Chuangchote, S.; Kirtikara, K.; Chenvidhya, T.; Onreabroy, W. Effects of dust accumulation and module cleaning on performance ratio of solar rooftop system and solar power plants. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2017, 56, 08ME02. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Aidara, M.C.; Ndiaye, M.L.; Mbaye, A.; Sylla, M.; Ndiaye, P.A.; Ndiaye, A. Study of the performance of a system for dry cleaning dust deposited on the surface of solar photovoltaic panels. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2018, 13, 16–23. [Google Scholar]
  71. Elminir, H.K.; Ghitas, A.E.; Hamid, R.H.; El-Hussainy, F.; Beheary, M.M.; Abdel-Moneim, K.M. Effect of dust on the transparent cover of solar collectors. Energy Convers. Manag. 2006, 47, 3192–3203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jiang, H.; Lu, L.; Sun, K. Experimental investigation of the impact of airborne dust deposition on the performance of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 4299–4304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cabanillas, R.E.; Munguía, H. Dust accumulation effect on efficiency of Si photovoltaic modules. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2011, 3, 43114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wakim, F. Introduction of PV Power Generation to Kuwait. Kuwait: Kuwait Institute for Scientific Researchers; [Report No. 440]; Kuwait Institute for Scientific Researchers: Kuwait City, Kuwait, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  75. Said, S.A.M.; Walwil, H.M. Fundamental studies on dust fouling effects on PV module performance. Sol. Energy 2014, 107, 328–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kaldellis, J.K.; Kapsali, M. Simulating the dust effect on the energy performance of photovoltaic generators based on experimental measurements. Energy 2011, 36, 5154–5161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Weber, B.; Quiñones, A.; Almanza, R.; Duran, M.D. Performance reduction of PV systems by dust deposition. Energy Procedia 2014, 57, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Majeed, R.; Waqas, A.; Sami, H.; Ali, M.; Shahzad, N. Experimental investigation of soiling losses and a novel cost-effective cleaning system for PV modules. Sol. Energy 2020, 201, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Natsheh, E.M. Power generation of solar PV systems in Palestine. Appl. Sol. Energy 2016, 52, 193–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Abu-Naser, M. Solar panels cleaning frequency for maximum financial profit. Open J. Energy Effic. 2017, 6, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Boykiw, E. The Effect of Settling Dust in the Arava Valley on the Performance of Solar Photovoltaic Panels. Master’s Thesis, Allegheny College, Meadville, PA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  82. Fathi, M.; Abderrezek, M.; Friedrich, M. Reducing dust effects on photovoltaic panels by hydrophobic coating. Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 2017, 19, 577–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Fathi, M.; Abderrezek, M.; Grana, P. Technical and economic assessment of cleaning protocol for photovoltaic power plants: Case of Algerian Sahara sites. Sol. Energy 2017, 147, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Figgis, B.; Ennaoui, A.; Ahzi, S.; Rémond, Y. Review of PV soiling particle mechanics in desert environments. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2017, 76, 872–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. García, M.; Marroyo, L.; Lorenzo, E.; Pérez, M. Soiling and other optical losses in solar-tracking PV plants in navarra. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2011, 19, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Garg, H. Effect of dirt on transparent covers in flat-plate solar energy collectors. Sol. Energy 1974, 15, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ghazi, S.; Ip, K. The effect of weather conditions on the efficiency of PV panels in the southeast of UK. Renew. Energy 2014, 69, 50–59. [Google Scholar]
  88. Abushgair, K.; Al-Waked, R. Effects of Coating Materials as a Cleaning Agent on the Performance of Poly-Crystal PV Panels. Coatings 2021, 11, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Younis, A.; Onsa, M. A brief summary of cleaning operations and their effect on the photovoltaic performance in Africa and the Middle East. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 2334–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Alghamdi, A.S.; Bahaj, A.S.; Blunden, L.S.; Wu, Y. Dust removal from solar PV modules by automated cleaning systems. Energies 2019, 12, 2923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Syafiq, A.; Pandey, A.K.; Adzman, N.N.; Abd Rahim, N. Advances in approaches and methods for self-cleaning of solar photovoltaic panels. Sol. Energy 2018, 162, 597–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jiang, Y.; Lu, L.; Lu, H. A novel model to estimate the cleaning frequency for dirty solar photovoltaic (PV) modules in desert environment. Sol. Energy 2016, 140, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Alnaser, N.W.; Al Othman, M.J.; Dakhel, A.A.; Batarseh, I.; Lee, J.K.; Najmaii, S.; Alothman, A.; Al Shawaikh, H.; Alnaser, W.E. Comparison between performance of man-made and naturally cleaned PV panels in a middle of a desert. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 1048–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mithhu, M.M.H.; Rima, T.A.; Khan, M.R. Global analysis of optimal cleaning cycle and profit of soiling affected solar panels. Appl. Energy 2021, 285, 116436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sayyah, A.; Horenstein, M.N.; Mazumder, M.K. Energy yield loss caused by dust deposition on photovoltaic panels. Sol. Energy 2014, 107, 576–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Assali, A.; Khatib, T.; Najjar, A. Renewable energy awareness among future generation of Palestine. Renew. Energy 2019, 136, 254–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Salah, W.A.; Abuhelwa, M.; Bashir, M.J. The key role of sustainable renewable energy technologies in facing shortage of energy supplies in Palestine: Current practice and future potential. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 125348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hamed, T.A.; Peric, K. The role of renewable energy resources in alleviating energy poverty in Palestine. Renew. Energy Focus 2020, 35, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ibrik, I.H.; Mahmoud, M.M. Energy efficiency improvement procedures and audit results of electrical, thermal and solar applications in Palestine. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 651–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 15 04232 g001 550
Figure 1. Global solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity (adapted from (REN21) [12], open access).
Figure 1. Global solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity (adapted from (REN21) [12], open access).
Energies 15 04232 g001
Energies 15 04232 g002 550
Figure 2. The main cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Palestine) [15].
Figure 2. The main cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Palestine) [15].
Energies 15 04232 g002
Energies 15 04232 g003 550
Figure 3. Major cleaning techniques for PV panels [4].
Figure 3. Major cleaning techniques for PV panels [4].
Energies 15 04232 g003
Energies 15 04232 g004 550
Figure 4. Shows the PV panels involved in the study.
Figure 4. Shows the PV panels involved in the study.
Energies 15 04232 g004
Energies 15 04232 g005 550
Figure 5. The PV system used in this study is Tulkarm.
Figure 5. The PV system used in this study is Tulkarm.
Energies 15 04232 g005
Energies 15 04232 g006 550
Figure 6. Power output and the percentage difference between weekly cleaned and two weeks cleaned panels.
Figure 6. Power output and the percentage difference between weekly cleaned and two weeks cleaned panels.
Energies 15 04232 g006
Energies 15 04232 g007 550
Figure 7. Power output and the percentage difference between weekly and monthly cleaned panels.
Figure 7. Power output and the percentage difference between weekly and monthly cleaned panels.
Energies 15 04232 g007
Energies 15 04232 g008 550
Figure 8. Power output and the percentage difference between weekly cleaned and two months cleaned panels.
Figure 8. Power output and the percentage difference between weekly cleaned and two months cleaned panels.
Energies 15 04232 g008
Energies 15 04232 g009 550
Figure 9. Power output and the percentage difference between weekly cleaned and six months cleaned panels.
Figure 9. Power output and the percentage difference between weekly cleaned and six months cleaned panels.
Energies 15 04232 g009
Energies 15 04232 g010 550
Figure 10. Power output and the percentage difference between weekly cleaned and yearly uncleaned panels.
Figure 10. Power output and the percentage difference between weekly cleaned and yearly uncleaned panels.
Energies 15 04232 g010
Table
Table 1. A review of scientific work related to the effect of cleaning on PV panels’ performance.
Table 1. A review of scientific work related to the effect of cleaning on PV panels’ performance.
No.AuthorCountry (Year)Cleaning MethodCleaning FrequencyTest DurationMain Result
1Al-Badra et al.Egypt
(2020)		Self-cleaning (Nano-coating)
mechanical vibrator.		Every 2 weeks for the coating panel, monthly for the combination of coating and vibration.6 WeeksThe uncleaned panel efficiency decreased by 3.69%, the coating panel decreased by 2.74%, and the combination of coating and vibration panel’s efficiency decreased by 1.45% [57].
2Shah et al.UAE
(2020)		-10 days
20 days
1 month
3 months		3.5 MonthsThe drop in electric power compared to a daily cleaned reference PV module was 3%, 5% 7%, and 13% for 10 days, 20 days, 1 month, and 3 months respectively [58].
3AL-Housani et al.Qatar
(2019)		Microfiber-based cloth wiperWeekly6 MonthsThere was an average performance improvement in the power output of the cleaned panels compare to the case of unclean panels which was 7.7% in winter and 3.1% in summer [59].
4Kazem and ChaichanOman
(2019)		WaterMonthlyOne YearIn the city of Muscat, there was a 52% reduction in power in the uncleaned PV module where the reduction in the monthly cleaning in the afternoon PV module was 34%, and it was 31% and 32% in the evening and early morning, respectively [60].
5Ahmed et al.Jordan
(2018)		Filtered deionized water onlyMonthly10 MonthsThere was an average of 2.205% of the output power difference between the cleaned and the uncleaned panels [61].
6Bunyan et al.Kuwait
(2016)		Water washingDaily and monthlyOne YearThe most affected months were April, May, October, and December with a reduction in the power of 15.07%, 13.74%,10.685%, and 8.742%, respectively compared to the cleaned panels [62].
7Hammoud et al.Lebanon
(2018)		Robot
cleaning		Every 2 Weeks3.5 MonthsThere was an improvement of 32.23% in the output production power [63].
8Mohamed and HasanLibya
(2012)		Water washingWeekly4 MonthsWeekly cleaning was sufficient to limit power loss in the range of 2–2.5% which was targeted in that study [64].
9Hammad et al.Jordan
(2018)		Manual cleaning and natural rainfall4 cleaning times with 3 frequencies:
53, 65, 74 days		192 DaysThey found that the optimum cleaning frequency is between 12 and 15 days depending on ANN and MLR models. (Tilt angle was 26° in the experiment) [65].
10Urrejola et al.Chile
(2016)		Manually using a brush with waterMonthly2 YearsA monthly decay of
17.36% in the performance ratio, the suggested cleaning frequency was 45 days [66].
11Naeem et al.USA
(2015)		Brush using waterThree times every year10 Years including other studiesThe annual soiling loss would be reduced from 1.9% to 1.2% when the cleaning is done 3 times per year [67].
12Moharram et al.Egypt
(2013)		Non-pressurized water and a combination of anionic and cationic surfactantsDaily and once after 45 days59 DaysThe efficiency of the PV modules has decreased from 15% at the beginning to 8% at the end of the 45 days when cleaning with non-pressurized water, and the efficiency decreased from 15% to an average of 12% after 45 days of cleaning with a mixture of anionic and cationic surfactants [68].
13Sakarapunthip et al.Thailand
(2017)		ManualOnce/2 Months-There was an increase in the output energy by 10% after cleaning [69].
14Cherif Aidara et al.Senegal
(2018)		Waterless cleaning
system		DailyOne MonthThe uncleaned module efficiency decreased by 24.09% while the cleaned panels decreased just by 10.16% [70].
15Elminir et al.Egypt
(2006)		---There was an average decrease of 17.4% monthly in the PV efficiency [71].
16Jiang et al.China
(2011)		---PV efficiency drop was 26% [72].
17Cabanillas and MunguíaMexico
(2011)		---The amorphous module’s maximum power was reduced due to dust in the range between 8–13% while the monocrystalline and polycrystalline modules had a reduction of maximum power between 4% and 7% [73].
18WakimKuwait
(2010)		-Monthly-PV efficiency decrease was 17% [74].
19Said and WalwilKSA
(2014)		-Monthly-PV efficiency decrease was 7% [75].
20Kaldellis and Kapsali(Greece)
(2011)		---Artificial dust (limestone) amount of 0.7 gm/m2 decreased the efficiency by 0.6% While 1.2 gm/m2 decreased the efficiency by 0.8%
The natural air pollution with the same masses above affected the efficiencies by
0.1% and 0.17%, respectively.
(the values are compared with a cleaned panel) [76].
21Weber et al.Mexico
(2013)		---For nearly 60 dry days, deposits and dust accumulation affected PV panels’ efficiency by 15% while in the whole year, the reduction of efficiency was 3.6% because of the natural cleaning that comes from rainfall, this huge difference in reduction after rainfall is normal and expected in Mexico since there are 125 rainy days per year [77].
22Majeed et al.Pakistan
(2020)		---Power loss due to dust accumulation in the case of mono PV was 16.6% and 11.55% in the poly PV, both at an angle of 34.5°, and dust density of 4.6 g/m2 [78].
Table
Table 2. Climate characteristics statistics in Tulkarm city in the year 2021.
Table 2. Climate characteristics statistics in Tulkarm city in the year 2021.
MonthJan.Feb.Mar.Apr.MayJun.Jul.Aug.Sept.Oct.Nov.Dec.
GHI (kWh/m2)87.74102.11154.06187.55225.49243.46247.35224.34184.82145.01103.8386.64
Monthly Total Rainfall (mm)145.512418.59000001.538.549.7
Mean Monthly Maximum Temperatures (°C)23.52423.527.831.831.935.336.334.928.224.618.4
Number Of Rainy Days988200001253
Mean Monthly Wind Speed (Km/h)5.534.054.244.985.535.165.354.984.424.423.505.53
Mean Monthly Relative Humidity (%)696056645363636563555669
Table
Table 3. Characteristics of (Trina Solar 330) in standard test conditions.
Table 3. Characteristics of (Trina Solar 330) in standard test conditions.
Maximum Power = 330 WOpen Circuit Voltage = 45.9 V
Short Circuit Current = 9.26 AMaximum Power Voltage = 37.3 V
Maximum Power Current = 8.85 APower Tolerance = 0~+3%
Maximum system voltage = DC 1000 VModule Application: class A
Nominal operating cell temperature = 45 ± 2 °COperating temperature: −40 to +85 °C
Weight = 23 kgDimensions = 1956 × 992 × 50 mm
Cell technology = Poly-Si.Module Efficiency (%) = 17.01
Table
Table 4. PV panels output in KWh.
Table 4. PV panels output in KWh.
DateWeekly2 WeeksMonthly2 Months6 Months1 Year
7 January 20217.42
14 January 20219.5416.90
21 January 20218.52
28 January 20217.8816.2833.08
7 February 202110.16
14 February 20217.9717.94
21 February 20218.88
28 February 20217.2416.0233.8966.46
7 March 202111.18
14 March 202111.4722.45
21 March 202112.53
28 March 202110.121.3544.72
7 April 202111.81
14 April 202113.5224.93
21 April 202110.71
28 April 202112.5022.9847.5189.12
7 May 202113.65
14 May 202111.2224.47
21 May 202113.91
28 May 202113.7227.14 50.96
7 June 202117.78
14 June 202111.3428.3
21 June 202111.95
28 June 202112.2623.5151.5699.26243.27
7 July 202117.89
14 July 202112.3429.30
21 July 202112.63
28 July 202112.3224.1753.23
7 August 202119.51
14 August 202112.0130.54
21 August 202111.71
28 August 202111.2222.1652.45102.03
7 September 202118.12
14 September 202111.1028.38
21 September 202110.92
28 September 202110.2820.5148.70
7 October 202114.62
14 October 202110.3324.63
21 October 202110.45
28 October 202110.0120.2944.8091.29
7 November 202112.60
14 November 20218.5620.97
21 November 20218.62
28 November 20218.3716.8337.73
7 December 20218.82
14 December 20218.6417.38
21 December 20218.83
28 December 20218.1316.8634.1571.36252.37473.87
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abdallah, R.; Juaidi, A.; Abdel-Fattah, S.; Qadi, M.; Shadid, M.; Albatayneh, A.; Çamur, H.; García-Cruz, A.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. The Effects of Soiling and Frequency of Optimal Cleaning of PV Panels in Palestine. Energies 2022, 15, 4232. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124232

AMA Style

Abdallah R, Juaidi A, Abdel-Fattah S, Qadi M, Shadid M, Albatayneh A, Çamur H, García-Cruz A, Manzano-Agugliaro F. The Effects of Soiling and Frequency of Optimal Cleaning of PV Panels in Palestine. Energies. 2022; 15(12):4232. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124232

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abdallah, Ramez, Adel Juaidi, Salameh Abdel-Fattah, Mahmoud Qadi, Montaser Shadid, Aiman Albatayneh, Hüseyin Çamur, Amos García-Cruz, and Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro. 2022. "The Effects of Soiling and Frequency of Optimal Cleaning of PV Panels in Palestine" Energies 15, no. 12: 4232. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124232

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop