Paper detail

Critical assessment of water enthalpy characterization through dark environment evaporation

Comparative evaporation rate testing in the absence of solar irradiation is a widely adopted method for establishing and characterizing a reduced vaporization enthalpy of water within an interfacial solar evaporator. However, the assumption of equal energy input between cases is not generally valid, and renders this characterization method misleading. Larger evaporation rates result from interfacial evaporators in dark conditions, mostly due to expanded surface areas. This causes greater evaporation rates, more evaporative cooling, and larger temperature differentials with the environment. We provide theoretical and experimental evidence to prove that these temperature differences cause large differences in environmental energy input, such that equal energy input cannot be assumed. Evaluation of our data within a transient analytical model enables quantification of the energy input differences and calculation of the vaporization enthalpy. This shows that differences in evaporation rate correspond to differences in energy input, and that vaporization enthalpy is not reduced below the theoretical value. The magnitude of increased energy input also agrees well with the increase of dark environment evaporation rates typically reported for interfacial evaporators, providing an alternative explanation for previous literature results. Further, we exemplify that the results of this characterization method contradict differential scanning calorimetry results, which are often used to make conclusions about vaporization enthalpy reduction and water state modification within evaporator materials. Thus, we conclude that this method should not be used to make conclusions about vaporization enthalpy reductions within interfacial evaporator materials. These results emphasize that the current understanding of vaporization enthalpy reduction within evaporator materials requires re-evaluation.

preprint2023arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.