Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 93 (2008) 155161

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jphotobiol

Effectiveness of solar disinfection using batch reactors with non-imaging aluminium

reectors under real conditions: Natural well-water and solar light
C. Navntoft a,d, E. Ubomba-Jaswa b, K.G. McGuigan b, P. Fernndez-Ibez c,*
a

Comisin Nacional de Energa Atmica CNEA, Av. Gral. Paz 1499, cp BNK1650 San Martn, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Department of Physiology and Medical Physics, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland
c
Plataforma Solar de Almera CIEMAT, P.O. Box 22, 04200 Tabernas, Almera, Spain
d
Escuela de Posgrado, Universidad Nacional de San Martn, Peatonal Belgrano 3563, B1650ANQ San Martn, Argentina
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 18 February 2008
Received in revised form 1 July 2008
Accepted 25 August 2008
Available online 6 September 2008
Keywords:
Compound parabolic collector
Solar disinfection
Escherichia coli
Natural well-water

a b s t r a c t
Inactivation kinetics are reported for suspensions of Escherichia coli in well-water using compound parabolic collector (CPC) mirrors to enhance the efciency of solar disinfection (SODIS) for batch reactors
under real, solar radiation (cloudy and cloudless) conditions. On clear days, the system with CPC reectors achieved complete inactivation (more than 5-log unit reduction in bacterial population to below the
detection limit of 4 CFU/mL) one hour sooner than the system tted with no CPC. On cloudy days, only
systems tted with CPCs achieved complete inactivation. Degradation of the mirrors under eld conditions was also evaluated. The reectivity of CPC systems that had been in use outdoors for at least 3 years
deteriorated in a non-homogeneous fashion. Reectivity values for these older systems were found to
vary between 27% and 72% compared to uniform values of 87% for new CPC systems. The use of CPC
has been proven to be a good technological enhancement to inactivate bacteria under real conditions
in clear and cloudy days. A comparison between enhancing optics and thermal effect is also discussed.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Many communities in developing countries cannot afford a conventional means of water treatment. As a result a large number of
the population who live in these areas do not have access to safe
water. This can lead to widespread occurrence of waterborne diseases most frequently in the form of diarrhoea. Infectious diarrhoea is also the leading cause of illness and death in children
less than 5 years of age. An economical and simple way to inactivate waterborne pathogens is required.
Water disinfection using the solar disinfection (SODIS) process
relies on the synergistic effect of sunlight and temperature upon
bacteria [13]. A great part of the research in understanding the
mechanism of this process has been done using transparent plastic
bottles exposed to sunlight under different operating conditions.
Results have shown that 6 h of solar exposure is sufcient to inactivate most bacterial pathogens in contaminated water when using
bottles of up to 2 L in volume [4,5].
The modern resurgence in SODIS was started by Acra et al. [6]
who reported that enteric bacteria were inactivated after exposure
to 6 h of sunlight. Subsequently other organisms have been tested,

* Corresponding author. Fax: +34 950 365015.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Navntoft), [email protected]
(E. Ubomba-Jaswa), [email protected] (K.G. McGuigan), [email protected]
(P. Fernndez-Ibez).
1011-1344/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2008.08.002

including: Salmonella typhimuirum, Shigella dysenteriae, Escherichia

coli, Vibrio cholera and Pseudomonas aeuriginosa [1,4,7,8], protozoan
oocysts of Cryptosporidium parvum and cysts of Giardia muris [9],
the yeast Candida albicans; the fungus, Fusarium solani [10] and Polio virus [11]. A controlled eld trial conducted immediately after a
cholera epidemic also revealed that SODIS participants were seven
times less likely to contract cholera [12]. The suitability of the SODIS technique for countries with a high incidence of waterborne
disease is further illustrated by the fact that these countries lie in
the latitude lines of 30N and 30S and hence receive sufcient
sunlight to apply SODIS.
When exposed to sunlight, standard SODIS reactor bottles are
only illuminated on the upper side so that a large fraction of the
available radiation can not reach the water. In order to increase
the radiation reaching the bottles, there have been several attempts to concentrate solar radiation using reecting surfaces. Kehoe et al. [4] found that the decay constants increased two fold by
the use of aluminium foil attached to the back of the bottles. Rijal
et al. [13] used wall reectors and observed improved efciencies
which they attributed solely to the increase in water temperature
of the system. Martin Dominguez et al. [14] found that reective
solar boxes could reduce the disinfection time to 34 h. Even
though all the mentioned works achieved some degree of enhancement by the use of the reectors, none of them analyzed which is
the best concentrating optics to enhance the radiation reaching the
bottles in SODIS.

156

C. Navntoft et al. / Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 93 (2008) 155161

Depending on their shape and geometry, concentrating systems

or mirrors can be classied into imaging systems and non-imaging
systems. Image forming systems focus an image of the sun at a
point, which is where the absorber is positioned. A typical example
is a parabolic mirror. They only work with rays parallel to the axis
of the parabola which means that they can only use direct solar
radiation and on clear days only. On the other hand, non-imaging
systems have a diffuse focus, and no image is formed. The concentrated rays are homogeneously distributed in the absorber. Their
main advantage is that they concentrate diffuse radiation. Hence,
they do not rely solely on direct solar radiation and are effective
even on cloudy days. In addition, they concentrate radiation independently of the direction of sunlight and do not require sun tracking in contrast to direction dependant image forming systems.
The SODIS process relies heavily on the UV-A wavelengths present in sunlight (315400 nm). Solar UV-A as received at sea level, is
composed of roughly similar portions of both direct and diffuse
electromagnetic radiation. On sunny days, the solar UV-A spectrum
is composed of 60% direct and 40% diffuse solar radiation [15].
Given the diffuse nature of the UV-A and the cylindrical shape of
the bottles, the use of concentrating systems based on non-imaging optics with low concentrating factor has obvious potential
compared to imaging optics-based systems.
Compound parabolic concentrators (CPCs) are concentrators
utilising non-imaging optics. Other reecting systems tested in
previous studies [13,14,16] have a varying concentration during
the day because they are essentially image forming systems and
depend on the angle of incidence of the sun on the reector. A major advantage of CPC systems is that the concentration factor remains constant for all values of sun zenith angle within the
acceptance angle limit.
When non-imaging optics is used to design a mirror for a cylindrical absorber, the result obtained is a compound parabolic concentrator (CPC). CPC mirrors have been widely used and tested in
the eld of photocatalysis to enhance the UV radiation reaching
the photocatalyst and it has been proven that the CPC is the best
optic to use to concentrate the solar UV spectrum [17].
Based on these arguments, the assessment of the use of CPC
mirrors to enhance SODIS is needed. This work reports results on
the evaluation of the use of CPC mirrors to enhance SODIS efciency under real solar radiation conditions in cloudy and clear
days. For this proposal, suspensions of E. coli in real well-water
were used for disinfection studies.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. PET bottles and glass tubes
The shape and dimensions of plastic bottles used for SODIS experiments are not standardized. From the practical point of view all bottles perform with similar efciency even though the amount of
radiation reaching the water is not necessary the same. The surface
of the bottles is usually irregular and the shape is, in some parts of
the bottle, not cylindrical but rather hexagonal. A correct assessment
of the radiation entering the system would require detailed optical
analysis and calculations for each particular bottle. In order to avoid
this obstacle, bottles were replaced with borosilicate glass tubes
which were closed at both ends. One end was completely closed
and the other had a sampling valve tted, as can be seen in Fig. 1a.
Each tube had dimensions of 1.50 m length, 0.05 m outer diameter,
1.8 mm wall thickness and 2.5 L internal volume.
Transparent PET bottles are opaque below wavelengths of
320 nm and transmittance might be as high as 8590% in UV-A
(320400 nm) wavelengths [7]. Borosilicate glass tubes have a
transmittance of 45% in the UV-B (280320 nm) and of 8990%
in the UV-A range [18]. In order to assess any efciency difference

Length = 1.50 m
Diameter = 0.05m
Closed end
Sampling valve
Optic axis

C = 90

CPC mirror

Fig. 1. (a) Glass tube conguration. (b) Design of CPC for the glass tube
experiments. (c) Experimental tube tted in CPC mirror inclined 37 with respect
to horizontal facing south.

arising from the transmittance, a comparison experiment was performed. The plastic bottle used for this experiment was a 2 L-bottle
with hexagonal cross sectional shape, 9 cm equivalent diameter
and 30 cm height. Both the bottle and the tube were exposed to
sunlight under the same atmospheric, radiometric and meteorological conditions in duplicated experiments.
2.2. CPC mirrors
We dene: aperture area = A; absorber area = Aabs; Sun zenith
angle on the concentrator = h; acceptance angle of the CPC = hc;
concentration factor = C = A/Aabs. The fundamental problem of radiation concentration is how can radiation which is incident on A and
uniformly distributed over a range of angles (h 6 hc) be concentrated onto the smaller absorber area Aabs without the need for
repositioning the system as the value of h varies [19]. For a cylindrically shaped SODIS reactor the concentrating system is twodimensional. In this case, the second law of thermodynamics states

157

C. Navntoft et al. / Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 93 (2008) 155161

that the maximum possible concentration or ideal concentration is

Cideal = 1/sin hc.
In the case of SODIS and given the diffuse nature of the UV-A spectrum [16], only a homogeneous distribution of light on the absorber
tube is required, not a high concentration. Hence, a system with a
concentration factor of 1 (C = 1) sun was designed. Then, hc = 90
and the shape of the mirror is dened by an involute to the absorber
as can be seen in Fig. 1b. The aperture of the system is 15.7 cm and is
numerically equal to the perimeter of the absorber. Due to the nonimaging nature of the reectors, the entire absorber is homogeneously illuminated at all times, even on cloudy days.
The CPC mirrors were built with highly reective aluminium
sheets type 320 G ALANOD anodized aluminium of 0.5 mm thickness (Alanod Aluminium GmbH, Ennepetal, Germany). The manufacturer reports a reectivity of 82% for the UV and 85% for the rest
of the solar spectrum. The reectivity of the mirrors was assessed
with a reectometer from Devices and Services (USA), model ISR,
measurement spectra of 635685 nm centred at 660 nm and a precision in measurement of 0.2%.
In order to assess the inuence of the material degradation
upon the SODIS process, the tubes were tested with old and new
CPC mirrors of the same material. The older CPCs had been exposed
to eld conditions for 3 years with relatively low maintenance.
2.3. Solar experiments
All experiments were performed under natural solar radiation
at the Plataforma Solar de Almera (P.S.A.), Spain, located at
37840 N and 2340 W. All the experiments were conducted in
duplicate on twin systems (tube + CPC) under the same meteorological conditions to ensure reproducibility of results, and each
sample was plated in triplicate. Tests started at 10:30 am and nished at 15:30 pm local time. Samples were taken after 15, 30, 60,
90, 120, 150, 180, 240 and 300 min of solar exposure. All the evaluated systems were inclined at 37 and facing South as shown in
Fig. 1c. The inclination corresponds to the latitude of the Plataforma Solar de Almera. This inclination value maximizes the annual
energy collection, enhancing the radiation reaching the system
during the winter months with a slight reduction during the summer [20]. Solar UV irradiance was measured with a global UV radiometer (295385 nm, Model CUV3, Kipp and Zonen, Netherlands)
inclined at 37, the same inclination as the systems.

Re-growth counts of bacteria were determined for all experiments, by leaving the last two samples at room temperature for
24 and 48 h. After 24 and 48 h the plate count method as described
above was used to determine bacterial counts on both LB agar
plates and Endo agar (SigmaAldrich, USA) plates. Endo agar is a
selective media, specic for the detection of coliforms and enteric
organisms in sources such as drinking water. Endo agar was also
used as a way to suppress and prevent growth of any non-coliforms or non-enteric organisms that might have grown during
the 24 and 48 h period and might interfere with accurate counts
of E. coli K-12. All samples of the experiments reaching the detection limit were evaluated in this way at the end of the experiment
and bacterial re-growth after stopping illumination was not observed within 24 and 48 h.
2.5. Water
Natural well-water was used in all experiments. The water was
extracted from a well located in the PSA area with a depth of approx. 200 m. The content of natural microorganisms is of around
100200 CFU/ml. The procedure to determine the background contamination was the same as that described in previous section. The
concentration of naturally occurring organisms was determined by
the plate enumeration technique using LB agar and was found to be
100-200 CFU/ml. These organisms were identied as non-coliforms
and non-enteric in nature due to their presentation as either irregular, colourless colonies on Endo agar or the complete lack of
growth also on Endo agar.
These studies were carried out using natural well-water so that
the microbiological and chemical environment within which the
SODIS inactivation occurred was as realistic as possible. Consequently, distilled water and other highly contaminated wastewaters (like municipal WW) were discarded as models of this study.
For similar reasons, the well-water was not autoclaved before each
experiment in order to preserve the chemical integrity of the original water matrix. A single batch of 100 L of well-water was withdrawn at once so that the same stock of water was used for all
the experiments, so that possible variations in the natural wellwater composition did not occur. Consequently all experimental
results could be compared. Table 1 shows general physical water
parameters averaged during the period of the experimental series.
3. Results

2.4. Bacteria
3.1. CPC inuence on clear sunny days
E. coli was used as a model target microorganism since it is
widely used as an indicator of faecal contamination in water.
E. coli K-12, ATCC 23631 was propagated in Luria Broth nutrient
medium (Millers LB Broth, Sigma-Aldrich, USA) and incubated at
37 C with constant agitation on a rotary shaker at 100 rpm for
24 h. The stationary phase of bacterial growth yielded a concentration of 109 CFU/mL. For all experiments, the range of initial concentrations (C0) of E. coli was from 106107 CFU/mL. Previous studies
by the authors (unpublished) have shown that this 1-log-unit variation in starting population had no inuence on the observed inactivation kinetics. E. coli suspensions were centrifuged at 800g for
10 min and re-suspended in PBS and inoculated in the 2.5-L tube to
reach the required cell density. Samples were serially diluted in
PBS and plated. Every sample was diluted at 1/10 relationship up
to three dilutions (D0, D1, D2, and D3) and consequently plated
on Luria agar (SigmaAldrich, USA). The detection limit for this
method of quantication is 4 CFU/mL. Inoculated samples were
incubated at 37 C for 24 h before counting. As a control, half of
the volume of the rst sample (7 mL) was kept in the dark at
37 C during the whole experiment and re-plated at the same time
as the last sample of the experiment.

Fig. 2a shows the results of the comparison between the bottle

and the tube with and without CPC to assess any difference in SODIS efciency due to material transmittance and also to the CPC.
Another tube was kept in the dark under the same eld conditions
as a control to guarantee the viability of the cells in the tube in the
absence of solar radiation. Experiments were performed on clear
sunny days.

Table 1
Average physical and chemical properties of the well-water used in the experiments
Natural well-water at PSA
Cl
NO
3
SO
4

F
Br
PO3
4
pH
Turbidity

355 mg/L
22 mg/L
329 mg/L
1 mg/L
2 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
7.3
12 NTU

Na+
NH4+
K+
Mg2+
Ca2+
HCO
3
Conductivity
Bacteria

370 mg/L
6 mg/L
11 mg/L
64 mg/L
122 mg/L
500 mg/L
2300 lS/cm
100 CFU/mL

158

C. Navntoft et al. / Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 93 (2008) 155161

Controls

10

Dark

50

10

40

10

UV Irradiance

30

10

10

Tube

Tube+CPC

20

Bottle

10

DL

10

UV Irradiance (W/m2)

Bacteria Conc. (CFU/ml)

10

3.2. CPC inuence on cloudy days

60

10

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

Local time (hh:mm)

7

Controls

10

60

10

50

No CPC

10

UV Irradiance
40

10

30
3

10

20

10

Old CPC
1

10

New CPC

DL

10

UV Irradiance (W/m2)

Bacteria Conc. (CFU/ml)

10

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

Local time (hh:mm)

Fig. 2. E. coli K12 inactivation during real sunlight exposure on clear days (a) with
real sunlight exposure in a glass tube with CPC (-.-), without CPC (-d-), PET bottle
(-N-) dark control (-j-); and on cloudy days (b) in a glass tube with new CPC (-.-),
old CPC (-N-), without CPC (-d-). Solid line () is the solar UV (295385 nm)
irradiance. Dashed line () shows the detection limit (DL). Each point represents the
average measurements and error bars show standard deviation from triplicate
measurements taken in duplicated experiments.

The plots show from 10:30 to 15:30 (x-axis) because the experiments were conducted during that period although points are only
plotted up until the time when the bacterial concentration decreased below the detection limit (DL).
Tube inactivation reaches the detection limit one hour before
the bottle. This can be attributed to the fact that the borosilicate
glass tube has a 45% UV-B transmittance (compared to 0% for
PET) and a 5% advantage over PET in the UV-A. Variations in UVA transmittance of both materials for the specic widths used
in the experiments yielded an average difference of just 5.3% (data
not shown). Larger differences in transmittance can be seen beyond UVA but since very little UVB and no UVC are present in terrestrial natural sunlight the effect of the different diameter of the
glass tube and the bottle [7] can be considered negligible.
Both glass tubes, with and without CPC, reached the detection
limit (4 CFU/mL). It can be seen that the system with the CPC
reached the detection limit one hour before the system with no
CPC. In terms of UVA-ux, the system with CPC reached detection
limit after receiving 150 kJ/m2 (Table 2) from the sun calculated
as the integral of the solar UVA irradiance (W m2) on the time of
exposure until DL was reached (s) , while that with no CPC needed
210 kJ/m2. This represents 40% more energy required to achieve
the same result on clear days with the non-CPC system. Hence
the system with CPC is more efcient in terms of energy usage.

Fig. 2b shows the results of similar experiments performed on

cloudy days. In this case the bottle was not tested since it was previously shown to have a lower efciency even in full sunshine. In
this case only the system with the CPC reectors reached the
detection limit. In these systems several factors contribute to the
results shown in Fig. 2a and b. When turbidity of the water is very
low (15 NTU), the SODIS process is dominated by the amount of
sunlight reaching the absorber [4]. On clear days, the direct component of sunlight predominates. Approximate contributions of direct and diffuse sunlight for the UV-A spectrum are of 60% and
40%, respectively [15]. This means that the energy needed for SODIS to reach detection limit will eventually be reached in both systems. Nevertheless, the reectors contribute by delivering more
energy in less time, producing a faster inactivation rate and reaching the detection limit one hour before. As stated earlier, the system without the CPC is only exposed to the sun on the front side
whereas that with the CPC has the entire tube illuminated.
On cloudy days, most of the available UV-A is in the diffuse form
with a negligible value for the direct component. In this case, the
reectors distribute all of the diffuse radiation reaching the aperture onto the absorber. The system without reectors receives
mainly the circumsolar diffuse radiation that comes directly from
the direction of the sun and not from the entire sky hemisphere.
This is known as forward scattered radiation and is very low on
cloudy days. This explains the fact that the system tted with
the CPC reaches detection limit and while the system with no
CPC does not.
In terms of optical path length, only the forward scattered radiation reaches the system without reectors and it must pass
through 5 cm of water optical path length while the system with
CPC receives radiation from the entire sky hemisphere and must
only go through 2.5 cm because the whole tube is illuminated.
3.3. Mirror degradation
The reectivity measurements performed on new mirrors reported homogeneous values over all the mirror of 82%. Those performed on 3 year old mirrors reported non-homogeneous values
between (27.0 0.5)% and (72.0 0.5)% of surface reectivity over
the length of the material. The use of old and new CPC mirrors for
solar disinfection was evaluated on both clear and cloudy days.
No improvement was seen on clear days in the system that had
the old CPC compared to the tube system without reectors (data
not shown). As stated previously, on clear days the inuence of the
CPC only allows a faster inactivation, so the degradation of the mirror retards this effect and inactivation times are the same in the
case of none and old CPC.
On cloudy days, the advantage of even an old degraded CPC can
still be observed (Fig. 2b). Both CPC (old and new) systems reached
the detection limit in cloudy days. The system without CPC did not.
The performance curves of the tube in (Fig. 2a) and the old CPC
(Fig. 2b) are similar. It is interesting to note that the old CPC is
capable of collecting so much diffuse radiation on cloudy days that
it matches the inactivation efciency observed for tube-only systems on sunny days.
The water temperature of the systems was monitored for each
sample in all the experiments. The temperature proles were similar to those recorded for 2 L PET bottles. None of the tests reached
a temperature higher than 33 C. In the dark the temperature of the
water increased by around 6 C while in sunlight all the systems
increased from 2021 C to 3033 C. This small increase of temperature during the 5 h-exposure can not explain the bacterial
inactivation observed but can affect the inactivation kinetics during the process. Berney et al. [1] reported sensitivity to mild heat

159

C. Navntoft et al. / Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 93 (2008) 155161

Table 2
Main characteristics of the tests presented in the experimental section
Date

29
29
29
29
24
24
24

May
May
May
May
May
May
May

2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007

Solar
system

Solar
conditions

Averageb
solar UVA
irradiance (W m2)

Ci

Glass tube
Bottle/No CPC
Tube/No CPC
Tube/(new) CPC
Tube/No CPC
Tube/old CPC
Tube/new CPC

Dark
Sunny
Sunny
Sunny
Cloudy
Cloudy
Cloudy

35 5
35 5
35 5
28 8
28 8
28 8

(6.1 0.6)  106

(5.3 0.4)  106
(4.3 0.4)  106
(5.23 0.14)  106
(4.8 0.5)  106
(5.5 0.3)  106
(3.5 1.1)  106

(CFU mL1)

Cf

(CFU mL1)

(7.0 3.0)  105

DL
DL
DL
(3.8 1.1)  103
DL
DL

Exposure to reach
DL (h)/UVA-uxe
(kJ/m2)

Minimummaximum
temperature (C)

Figure

21.327.5
21.329.5
21.530.4
21.033.0
20.728.7
20.331.2
20.233.0

Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.

3/340 60
2/210 30
1.5/150 20

2/200 50
1.5/140 40

2a
2
2a
2a
2b
2b
2b

All the experiments were performed in duplicate in twin systems under the same climate conditions from 10:30 to 15:30 local time.
The average for the 5 h duration of the experiment.
c
Ci: initial bacterial concentration (CFU mL1)
d
Cf: nal bacterial concentration (CFU mL1). DL: when zero CFU was detected, concentration was the detection limit (DL: 4 CFU/mL). Each value of bacterial concentration
is the average measurement and errors are standard deviation from triplicate measurements taken in duplicated experiments.
e
Accumulated UVA-ux calculated as the integral of the solar UVA irradiance (W m2) on the time of exposure until DL was reached.

3.4. Modeling with Gearaerd and Van Impe inactivation model tting
tool

-1

above a temperature of 45 C for E. coli, S. typhimurium and S. exneri, while V. cholerae was already susceptible above 40 C. The
temperatures experienced in this work are relatively lower compared to those values.

Log10 N(CFU ml )

Sunny conditions
Geeraerd shoulder model

7
6
5
4

Bottle

Tube

Tube+CPC

DL

Table 3
Fitting results of the experimental data using the Gearaerd and Van Impe inactivation
model tting tool (GinaFiT)
Solar system

Fitting model

Sunny conditions
Bottle
Geeraerd shoulder
Glass tube
Geeraerd shoulder
Glass
Geeraerd shoulder
tube + new
CPC
Cloudy conditions
Glass tube
Geeraerd shoulder
and tail
Glass tube + old Geeraerd shoulder
CPC
Glass
Geeraerd shoulder
tube + new
CPC

Parameters
Shoulder
length;
kmax (min1)

TDL (min)

FDL
(kJ/m2)

48 6; 0.11 0.01
26 3; 0.15 0.01
16 8; 0.20 0.02

174.6 0.8 330 60

120.0 0.3 210 30
87.3 0.3 140 20

41 3; 0.14 0.01
log(Nres) = 3.60 0.03
26 5; 0.15 0.01
120.0 0.5 200 50
18 9; 0.16 0.04

88.0 0.4 130 30

TDL and FDL values (time and ux received required to reach DL) from real sunlight
exposure of the different solar systems studied.

0
-1

Log10 N(CFU ml )

The Gearaerd and Van Impe inactivation model tting tool

(GInaFIT) was used for analysing different congurations of the solar systems under sunny and cloudy conditions. The following
models were used: log-linear regression, log-linear + tail, log-linear + shoulder, log-linear + shoulder + tail, Weibull model, biphasic
model, biphasic + shoulder [21].
All models were run for each inactivation curve and the values
of the root mean sum of squared errors (RMSE) were compared.
The RMSE is considered to be the most simple and informative
measure of goodness-of-t for linear and nonlinear models [21].
The model with the smallest RMSE was considered the best t
for the respective inactivation curve. If two models had the same
or similar RMSE values the simplest model was considered to t
best.
TDL and FDL values (exposure time and solar UVA-ux required
to reduce plate counts to the detection limit DL) were calculated
using the best-t model of GInaFIT (Table 3). These ts show that

60

120

180

Cloudy conditions
Geeraerd shoulder model
Geeraerd shoulder + tail model

6
5

No CPC

4
3
2
1

Tube+new CPC

Tube+old CPC
DL

0
0

60

120

180

240

300

Time (min)
Fig. 3. Inactivation curves of E. coli K12 during real sunlight exposure on clear days
(top) in a glass tube with CPC (-.-), without CPC (-d-), PET bottle (-N-), and on
cloudy days (bottom) in a glass tube with new CPC (-.-), old CPC (-N-), without CPC
(-d-). Lines represent theoretical ts using the Gearaerd and Van Impe inactivation
model tting tool (GinaFiT) [21].

the experiments carried out in the glass tube using the new CPC
yields the fastest inactivation rate (kmax) compared with the other
systems evaluated. All kinetics results obey the Geeraerd shoulder
model as expected for the SODIS process [1], except for the case of
the tube without CPC mirror under cloudy conditions which obeys
to the Geeraerd shoulder and tail model (Fig. 3).
4. Discussion
In previous SODIS experiments it was established that the minimum temperature at which a synergy effect can be observed is
around 4550 C for E. coli K12 [7]. Since in our experiments the
temperature never exceeded 33 C, synergy and thermal effects
were ignored so that the bacterial inactivation observed can only
be attributed to the effect of solar radiation.
There are a number of pioneering studies that have tried to enhance disinfection using some kind of solar thermal system. Martin
Dominguez et al. painted sections of the bottles with black paint so
that the water could reach a higher temperature [14]. Rijal et al.
circulated water over a black surface in an enclosed casing which
was transparent to UV-A light [13]. Saitoh et al. made a system that
enhanced temperature by using a solar collector attached to a double glass envelope container [22]. All of these studies have

160

C. Navntoft et al. / Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 93 (2008) 155161

achieved different degrees of success with respect to enhancing the

heat transfer to the contaminated water.
From the solar thermal point of view, bottles or tubes painted
partially or totally with conventional black paint are among the
least efcient systems for converting sunlight into heat [23]. The
most economic solar collectors have an average conversion efciency of around 30% [24]. Painted bottles or tubes have a somewhat lower efciency than these. According to the principles of
heat transfer [23,25], it takes approximately 12 h to heat 1 L of
water inside a painted bottle from 20 to 45 C, assuming summer
weather conditions, global irradiances of around 800 W/m2 and a
30% conversion efciency. In winter, depending on ambient temperature, the system would not reach the desired temperature
mainly due to heat losses to the environment. Previous works have
tried to couple a solar thermal collector to a radiation collector device [22] to address this problem. More efcient solar thermal collectors are available but their cost is prohibitively high to be
considered as a part of a SODIS system.
From the optical point of view and with the use of a CPC, the solar UV-A radiation reaching the system is limited by the transmittance of the tube or bottle and the reectivity of the mirror. The
transmittance of most PET bottles and borosilicate glass tube is
around 8590%. The reectivity of the mirror can vary according
to the material used to build the reectors. In most cases it is above
80% [26]. The major advantage of UV-A light is that it still reaches
the Earths surface on cloudy days, so solar radiation eventually
gets into the water and reaches the bacteria. However, it should
be noted that solar collector systems do not reach the desired temperature in cloudy days.
Clearly it is much more protable to invest efforts to enhance
the optics of radiation collection in SODIS systems than to enhance
the thermal component.
In view of these results, the use of CPC enhances SODIS inactivation on both clear and cloudy days. On clear days the CPC effect
is a faster inactivation of the bacteria. On cloudy days, only systems
with CPC reectors were inactivated to below the detection limit.
This highlights a major advantage of CPC-enhanced SODIS since
it overcomes the problems associated with process interruption
due to cloudiness. It is important to mention that until now most
of research on SODIS has shown that complete inactivation is not
reached on cloudy days [5]. Although the systems have not been
tested with completely overcast skies, the statement remains the
same, all radiation reaching the aperture will reach the absorber.
In contrast, the system with no reectors will receive very little
radiation.
The water used in the experiments was transparent with turbidity of less than 5 NTU. In eld conditions, water turbidity can
go up to 200 NTU. Under such conditions an important attenuation
of sunlight is expected as mentioned by Kehoe et al. [4]. In these
cases, the difference in inactivation efciency between systems
with and without CPC reectors is expected to be larger on both
clear and cloudy days. The path length of light inside the water
when the CPC are used reduces to half of that with no reectors.
Given that the attenuation of sunlight is exponential according to
the BeerLambert law, an important enhancement of the process
in turbid water systems with CPC is expected. The attenuation of
light in turbid water was investigated by Sommer et al. [27]; this
issue will be addressed with further experiments under real conditions as a complementary study of this work.
It is widely accepted that UVA radiation (315400 nm) mediates its biological effects on bacteria mainly via reactive oxygen
species (ROS), such as superoxide radicals, hydroxyl radicals,
hydrogen peroxide, and singlet oxygen [28]. In natural waters
and wastewaters subjected to oxidation processes, oxidation of
contaminants initiated by CO
3 is always in competition with oxidation by hydroxyl radical and, depending on the type of process,

with oxidation by other oxidizing species, or phototransformation

by UV light [29]. Formation rates of CO
3 cannot exceed those of
hydroxyl radicals, while the main scavengers of both radicals are
dissolved natural organic matter and, if present, hydrogen perox
ide. The high content of carbonates CO
3 /bicarbonates HCO3
present in the well-water used in this work may be a limiting factor for the SODIS process. HCO
3 reacts with the hydroxyl radicals,
producing the less reactive anion radical CO
3 (Eqs. (1) and (2)).
This radical shows a wide range of reactivity with organic molecules but it is mainly a selective electrophilic reagent, and its reactions are slower than those of OH. In addition, HCO
3 induces photo
absorption which protects bacteria from light. This screening effect
limits the light penetration into the bacterial suspension [30].


OH HCO3 ! CO
3 H2 O



OH CO2
3 ! CO3 OH

Given that SODIS is usually used under rough eld conditions

degradation of reectivity is likely to be a problem for whichever
reective material is used. The older CPCs were exposed to only
moderate eld conditions and yet suffered an important decrease
in the reectivity after 3 years of exposure. Therefore, material
degradation should not be overlooked for any reector used together with SODIS systems.
The cost of the aluminium mirror itself is similar to that of the
bottle or even higher depending on the quality, so the use of reectors is justied in larger SODIS systems that provide drinking water
for several households. Nevertheless alternative materials that are
less reective and consequently cheaper could be used.
Another benet of the use of CPCs is that they enhance solar disinfection without using any additives in the water. Previous works
have shown that solar disinfection can be improved by adding a
photocatalyst in suspension to the system [31]. Even though this
makes the process more effective, it poses another problem because the catalyst has to be removed from the water matrix.
Since this work clearly shows the benet of using CPC mirrors
to enhance SODIS inactivation on both sunny and cloudy days it
is reasonable to expect CPC-enhanced SODIS systems to inactivate
more resistant water pathogens like bacterial spores and protozoa,
whose resistance to traditional SODIS is much greater than that of
bacterial cells. Further research work will be addressed to explore
the capabilities of CPC-enhanced SODIS on disinfection of water
containing such pathogens.

5. Conclusions

 The use of CPCs to enhance SODIS has been tested with natural
well-water and natural sunlight conditions. On clear days, a faster inactivation rate is obtained in the system with CPC compared to that without reectors. On cloudy days inactivation
to below the detection limit is only achieved using systems tted with CPCs. This technological enhancement can be used to
design future larger scale systems to treat high volumes of water
for several households.
 The degradation of the mirrors under eld conditions should not
be underestimated and has to be considered if systems are
exposed outdoors for extended periods of time. After 3 years
of exposure, non-homogeneous degradation of mirrors was
observed through the reectivity measurements. New CPC
reectivity was around 82% while values between 27% and
72%were recorded for older CPCs. The faster inactivation rate
on clear sunny days was not signicant for systems with old
CPCs compared to systems with no reectors. However, on
cloudy days both new and older CPCs produced inactivations

C. Navntoft et al. / Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 93 (2008) 155161

to below the detection limit, a feat which is un-matched by systems without CPCs. This means that even with degradation, a
CPC provides a major advantage.
 The CPC has been proven as a SODIS enhancement technology,
allowing more radiation to reach the absorbing volume leading
to a reduction in the SODIS exposure time and allowing the
treatment of higher volumes of water on the same day.

6. Abbreviations
CPC: compound parabolic collector; SODIS: solar disinfection.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank to Miss Aranxta Fernandez for making reectivity measurements of mirrors and for her helpful suggestions.
This work was nanced by the SODISWATER project (EU Contract:
INCO-CT-2006-031650) and Doctoral Fellowship from ANPCyT and
Grant MAE-AECI 2006-2007 (Spain) for C. Nanvtoft.
References
[1] M. Berney, H.U. Weinelnmann, A. Simonetti, T. Egli, Efcacy of solar
disinfection of Escherichia coli, Shigella exneri, Salmonella Typhimurium and
Vibrio cholerae, J. Appl. Microbiol. 101 (2006) 828836.
[2] R. Conroy, M.E. Meegan, T. Joyce, K.G. McGuigan, J. Barnes, Solar disinfection of
drinking water and diarrhoea in Massai children: a controlled eld trial, The
Lancet 348 (1996) 16951697.
[3] R.H. Reed, The inactivation of microbes by sunlight: solar disinfection as a
water treatment process, Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 54 (2004) 333365.
[4] S.C. Kehoe, T.M. Joyce, P. Ibrahim, J.B. Gillespie, R.A. Shahar, K.G. McGuigan,
Effect of agitation, turbidity, aluminium foil reectors and container volume on
the inactivation efciency of batch process solar disinfectors, Water Res. 35
(2001) 10611065.
[5] R. Meierhofer, M. Wegelin, Solar Water Disinfection: A Guide for the
Application of SODIS, Sandec Report 06/02, Dubendorf, Switzerland, 2002.
[6] A. Acra, Y. Karahagopian, Z. Raffoul, R. Dajani, Disinfection of oral rehydration
solutions by sunlight, The Lancet 2 (1980) 12571258.
[7] K.G. McGuigan, T.M. Joyce, R.M. Conroy, J.B. Gillespie, M.E. Meegan, Solar
disinfection of drinking water contained in transparent plastic bottles:
characterizing the bacterial inactivation process, J. Appl. Microbiol. 84 (1998)
11381148.
[8] R.J. Smith, S.C. Kehoe, K.G. McGuigan, M.R. Barer, Effects of simulated solar
disinfection of water on infectivity of Salmonella typhimurium, Lett. Appl.
Microbiol. 31 (2000) 284288.
[9] K.G. McGuigan, F. Mndez-Hermida, J.A. Castro-Hermida, E. Ares-Mazs, S.C.
Kehoe, M. Boyle, C. Sichel, P. Fernndez-Ibez, B.P. Meyer, S. Ramalingham,
E.A. Meyer, Batch solar disinfection (SODIS) inactivates oocysts of
Cryptosporidium parvum and cysts of Giardia muris in drinking water, J. Appl.
Microbiol. 101 (2006) 453463.
[10] J. Lonnen, S. Kilvington, S.C. Kehoe, F. Al-Touati, K.G. McGuigan, Solar and
photocatalytic disinfection of protozoan, fungal and bacterial microbes in
drinking water, Water Res. 39 (2005) 877883.

161

[11] W. Heaselgrave, N. Patel, S. Kilvington, S.C. Kehoe, K.G. McGuigan, Solar

disinfection of poliovirus and Acanthamoeba polyphaga cysts in water a
laboratory study using simulated sunlight, Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 43 (2006)
125130.
[12] R. Conroy, M.E. Meegan, T.M. Joyce, K.G. McGuigan, J. Barnes, Solar disinfection
of drinking water protects against cholera in children under 6 years of age,
Arch. Dis. Childhood 85 (2001) 293295.
[13] G.K. Rijal, R.S. Fujioka, Use of reectors to enhance the synergistic effects of
solar heating and solar wavelengths to disinfect drinking water sources, Water
Sci. Technol. 48 (2003) 481488.
[14] A. Martn Domnguez, M.T. Alarcn Herrera, I.R. Martin Domnguez, A.
Gonzalez-Herrera, Efciency in the disinfection of water for human
consumption in rural communities using solar radiation, Sol. Energy 78
(2005) 3140.
[15] S. Madronich, in: S. Christos Zerefos, F. Bais Alkiavidis (Eds.), Solar UV
Radiation: Modelling, Measurements and Effects, Series I: Global
Environmental Change, vol. 52, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1997.
[16] S.K. Mani, R. Kanjur, I.S. Brigth Singh, R.H. Reed, Comparative effectiveness of
solar disinfection using small scale batch reactors with reective, absorptive
and transmissive rear surfaces, Water Res. 40 (2006) 721727.
[17] S. Malato, J. Blanco, P. Fernandez, D.C. Alarcn, M. Collares, J. Farinha, J.
Correia, Engineering of solar photocatalytic collectors, Sol. Energy 77 (2004)
513524.
[18] M.A. Blesa, C. Navntoft, L. Dawidowski, in: M.A. Blesa, J. Blanco (Eds.), Solar
technologies for disinfection and decontamination of water, Ed. Escuela de
Posgrado, UNSAM, San Martin, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2005.
[19] A. Rabl, Comparison of solar concentrators, Sol. Energy 18 (1976) 93111.
[20] M. Iqbal, An Introduction to Solar Radiation, Academic Press, New York,
1983.
[21] A.H. Geeraerd, V.P. Valdramidis, J.F. Van Impe, GInaFiT, a freeware tool to
assess non-log-linear microbial survivor curves, Int. J. Food Microbiol. 102
(2005) 95105.
[22] T.S. Saitoh, H.H. El-Ghetany, A pilot solar water disinfecting system:
performance analysis and testing, Sol. Energy 72 (2002) 261269.
[23] J.A. Dufe, W. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, Wiley, New
York, 2006.
[24] J.M. Chasseriaux, Conversion thermique du rayonnement solaire, Dunod, Paris,
1984.
[25] D.Y. Goswami, F. Kreith, J.F. Kreider, Principles of Solar Engineering, Taylor and
Francis, New York, 2000.
[26] A. Rabl, N.B. Goodman, R. Winston, Practical considerations for CPC solar
collectors, Sol. Energy 22 (1979) 373381.
[27] B. Sommer, A. Mario, Y. Solarte, M.L. Salas, C. Dierolf, C. Valiente, D. Mora, R.
Rechsteiner, P. Setters, W. Wirojanagud, H. Ajarmeh, A. Al-Hassan, M. Wegelin,
SODIS an emerging water treatment process, J. Waster SRT Aqua 46 (1997)
127137.
[28] J.D. Hoerter, A.A. Arnold, D.A. Kuczynska, A. Shibuya, C.S. Ward, M.G. Sauer, A.
Gizachew, T.M. Hotchkiss, T.J. Fleming, S. Johnson, Effects of sublethal UVA
irradiation on activity levels of oxidative defense enzymes and protein
oxidation in Escherichia coli, J. Photochem. Photobiol. B: Biol. 81 (2005) 171
180.
[29] S. Canonica, T. Kohn, M. Mac, F.J. Real, J. Wirz, U. von Guten, Photosensitizer
method to determine rate constants for the reaction of carbonate radical with
organic compounds, Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (2005) 91829188.
[30] A.G. Rincn, C. Pulgarn, Effect of pH, inorganic ions, organic matter and H2O2
on E. coli K12 photocatalytic inactivation by TiO2. Implications in solar water
disinfection, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 51 (2004) 283302.
[31] A.G. Rincn, C. Pulgarn, Photocatalytical inactivation of E. coli: effect of
(continuous-intermittent) light intensity and of (suspended-xed) TiO2
concentration, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 44 (2003) 263284.