Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 96 (2013) 283–291
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Effect of soiling on photovoltaic modules

Reinhart Appels a,⇑, Buvaneshwari Lefevre a, Bert Herteleer a, Hans Goverde a,b,
Alexander Beerten a, Robin Paesen a, Klaas De Medts a, Johan Driesen a, Jef Poortmans b
a
ESAT/ELECTA, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
b
IMEC vzw, Kapeldreef 75, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium

Received 1 December 2012; received in revised form 18 May 2013; accepted 2 July 2013

Communicated by: Associate Editor Bibek Bandyopadhyay

Abstract

In the past, the phenomenon of dust deposition on the glass cover of photovoltaic modules has been studied mainly in the Middle
East, but little is known about the phenomenon in Central Europe. This paper focuses on the magnitude of the problem in Belgium
(Köppen climate classification: Cfb). A variety of measurements were performed to determine the effect of dust settlement on the power
output of photovoltaic modules. The physical properties of the collected dust were examined using a scanning electron microscope
(SEM). A potential solution for the phenomenon, namely the usage of special coatings on the cover glass, was investigated. The results
show that the problem of dust settlement on photovoltaic modules in Belgium is not as severe as in the Middle East. Nonetheless the
problem exists and results in a constant power loss between 3% and 4% for the optimal tilt angle in Belgium which is 35° and with periods
of regular rainfall. Please note that these results do not reflect a one year energy loss, further experiments are needed. Rain seems to have
little cleaning effect on smaller dust particles (2–10 lm), but on bigger particles (pollen, approx. 60 lm) the cleaning effect is clearly vis-
ible. The use of special coatings on the glass have a potential reduction in power loss caused by dust settlement. However, at this
moment, the extra cost associated with these coatings is not justified for photovoltaic modules in Belgium. Cleaning panels should only
be done when soft tap water or demineralized water is available.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Air pollution; Dust; Energy efficiency; Environmental factors

1. Introduction in the effects of dust deposition on solar panels increased.

Especially in residential use, little attention is given to
the efficiency of, and environmental effects on, installed
Photovoltaic Modules (Appels et al., 2012). About 7 dec-
ades ago, Hottel and Woertz (1942) noticed a decrease in
performance of 4.7% after 2 months of exposing thermal
collectors with a tilt angle of 30°. Garg (1974) (India), Say-
igh et al. (1985) (Kuwait) and Nahar and Gupta (1999)
(India) observed an increase in the amount of deposited
dust with decreased tilt angle. They concluded that solar
panels subjected to desert conditions should be cleaned
daily. Later, after 1990 (Mani and Pillai, 2010), interest
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Reinhart.Appels@esat.kuleuven.be (R. Appels).
Mohammad and Fahmy (1993) studied the effect of the
physical properties of dust (mainly particle size), and the
influence of the amount of dust on the output of a solar
panel. In another paper (Mohammad and Fahmy, 1993)
the same authors summarized the results of the study on
the influence of particle size on the reduction of transmit-
tance. Their work showed that smaller particles have a
far greater effect than larger particles on the transmittance
of glass. Goossens et al. (1993) studied the effect of wind
speed on the deposition of dust in Israel and concluded that
even the slightest turbulence in the atmosphere has an effect
on the movement of dust particles because of their extre-
mely small inertia. Adel (2001) investigated dust deposition
on 9 glass panels with different tilt angles in Egypt. He
measured the transmittance every day for 30 days, using

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.07.017
284 R. Appels et al. / Solar Energy 96 (2013) 283–291
a pyranometer, investigating the behavior of the decrease
in transmittance with respect to time. Hegazy noticed that
the speed of decrease in transmittance decreases with time
and eventually reaches a saturation point. Hassan et al.
(2005) came to a similar conclusion that the decrease in
transmittance reaches a point of saturation after 30 days
of exposure. The power output of the PV panels reduced
33.5% to 65.8% for an exposure of respectively 1 and
6 months. Elminir et al. (2006) (Egypt) used 100 glass pan-
els with different tilt angles and measured a dust deposition
of 15.84 g/m2 (0°) and 4.48 g/m2 (90°). Kimber et al. (2006)
measured a linear increase in the losses at a rate of
0.0011 kWh/kWp/day between rain showers. A linear
increase in the losses was also modeled for Madrid (Spain)
by Ransome and Sutterlueti (2012) who determined that
the soiling behavior dominates the cost in regions with long
periods without rainfall. El-Nashar (2009) investigated the
seasonal effect of dust deposition in Abu Dhabi, where dur-
ing the summer months frequent sandstorms occur. He
concluded that the dust deposition on glass tubes, used in
a solar desalination plant, caused a monthly drop in trans-
mittance of 10–18%, advising a weekly cleaning to get the
maximum annual water production. Rahoma and Hassan
(2010) came to similar results after a nine-year measure-
ment period of aerosol optical depth measurements in Hel-
wan (Egypt), although they only measured the dust in the
air, not the dust deposition, which is the focus of this
paper. Tests (Vivar et al., 2010) in Madrid (Spain) and
Canberra (Australia) concluded that CPV systems are
more sensitive to soiling than flat panels, reaching optical
losses of up to 26% for CPV systems after 4 months of
exposure. Pavan et al. (2011) determined in Italy that the
influence of soiling was higher for a 1 MW PV power plant
on sandy soil, with 6.9% annual losses, compared to an
annual loss of 1.1% for compact soil. Stridh (2012) simu-
lated that cleaning of PV power plants has an economical
value for the south of Europe (Murcia, Spain), but proba-
bly not in the North (Helsinki, Finland), especially consid-
ering snowfall.Andrews and Pearce (2012) developed a
methodology for predicting losses based on readily avail-
able meteorological data, especially for snowfall. Ibrahim
(2011) discovered a reduction by 2.78% per day of Isc and
a decrease by 0.863% per day of Voc due to accumulation
of dust. Although a cleanliness monitoring system has been
introduced by Garcı́a et al. (2012) and the influence of the
loss distribution has been investigated in Lee et al. (2012),
many questions still remain, and we are especially inter-
ested in the influence of the dust settlement on photovoltaic
modules in Belgium.
Although Qasem et al. (2011a); Qasem et al. (2011b) did
similar research in Kuweit (Köppen climate classification
(Jordan et al., 2013): BWh) with the type of dust of that
area, Zorrilla-Casanova et al. (2012) included the effect of
rainfall in Spain (classified as BSh under the Köppen cli-
mate classification), the research described in this paper
goes a step further by comparing a set-up shielded by rain
with an unshielded set-up using a spectrometer and a
scanning electron microscope. An other interesting result
from Zorrilla-Casanova et al. (2012) is the seemingly sym-
metric losses caused by dust throughout a day, indicating
that the losses have an angle dependence. Although in
1980 Shelby et al. (1980) reviewed the weathering resistance
of different types of glass, the effect of special new types of
glass, such as glass with a self-cleaning or an anti-reflection
coating (based on nanostructured glass packaging (Sakhuja
et al., 2012)), and their potential are unknown.
2. Methodology
This part of the paper will detail the methodology
employed to investigate the dust deposition on tilted glass
samples. First, the spectrometer set-up will be presented.
Next, the experimental verification of the relationship
between the decrease in transmittance and the decrease in
output power will be highlighted. Followed by some sam-
ples were examined using a scanning electron microscope
(SEM), to identify some components in the dust. Next
the effect of some prototype coatings are investigated and
finally, the set-up to determine the effect of dry residue is
introduced.
2.1. Transmittance of natural dust deposition
The influence of the settlement of dust on the output
power of solar panels was determined in an indirect way.
First we collected dust using a set-up containing 4 identical
normal glass samples exposed to the elements at different
tilt angles (0°, 30°, 60° and 90°). The set-up was placed
on the rooftop of the Department of Electrical Engineering
(ELECTA/ESAT at N 50.9°, E 4.7° (Woyte et al., 2003)) at
KU Leuven. Two such set-ups were used where one was
shielded from the rain. The transmittance of the glass sam-
ples was evaluated every 2–3 weeks, consistently measured
right after a rain shower, using a spectrometer (Avantes
AVASPEC-2048-2-USB2). The transmittance measure-
ments were performed with the set-up shown in 1. The
measurements were performed on the spectrometer set-
up, where a 180° measuring probe was used together with
a 500 W halogen lamp light source. The set-up was
designed in such a way that it measures the spectrum of
the light passing through a predefined surface, where the
glass samples can be mounted.
The transmittance in function of the wavelength (Tk) for
a glass sample (Tk,G), a glass sample contaminated by soil-
ing (Tk,G&S) and the soiling (Tk,S) has been determined as:
Z
Ik
Tk ¼ dk ð1Þ
I 0k
T k;G&S ¼ T k;S  T k;G ð2Þ
T k;G&S
T k;S ¼ ð3Þ
T k;G
With I0k the measured irradance in function of the wave-
length for the setup without a medium, Ik,G the irradance
 R. Appels et al. / Solar Energy 96 (2013) 283–291
Fig. 1. Set-up for transmittance measurements.
in function of the wavelength for the setup with the cleaned
glass sample and Ik,G&S the irradance in function of the
wavelength for the setup with the, by soiling contaminated,
glass sample. It goes without saying that, even though the
lamp is connected to a voltage stabelizer, it takes some time
for the illumination to saturate.1
2.2. Transmittance of artificial dust deposition
Secondly the relation between the dust deposition and
output power was determined. For the two different types
of solar panels (a Sanyo HIP-210 NKHE1 and an Euroso-
lare PL160) were artificially contaminated with different
types of dust (white sand (250 lm), clay (68 lm) and
cement (10 lm)). As shown in 2, the dust was weighed
accurately and applied on a reference glass sheet with a
sieve before placing the glass on the solar panel. For differ-
ent amounts of deposited dust the I–V curve was registered
and the decrease of the maximum power point was calcu-
lated. For this experiment natural sunlight was used. The
measurements were done as fast as possible on a clear
day, removing the glass sheet before and after every mea-
surement for calibration. In the same way small glass sam-
ples (identical to the ones used to collect natural dust) were
artificially contaminated with the same dust that was used
on the solar panels. For different amounts of deposited
dust the transmittance was measured using the set-up of
1. These results together with the I–V curves lead to a rela-
tion between the decrease in transmittance and output
power. The power decrease was determined by:
1
This can take a few hours for a new lamp and quickly droppes to about
half an hour for a frequent used lamp.
285
Fig. 2. Set-up used to measure the I–V-curve using artificial dust
distributed between two plexiglass plates.
P MPP ;G&S
P MPP ;S ½% ¼  100% ð4Þ
P MPP ;G
With PMPP,S the maximum power available due to soiling,
PMPP,G&S the maximum power measured on the contami-
nated glass, and PMPP,G the maximum power measured
for a cleaned sample (0 [g/m2]).
2.3. Physical properties of the collected dust
Some glass samples where examined using a scanning
electron microscope to identify the source of the collected
dust.
2.4. The effect of special coatings
The effect of special coatings to enhance the reflection
and self-cleaning properties of the front glass of solar pan-
els was investigated. A set-up containing coated glass sam-
ples with a tilt angle of 35° was used to collect natural dust
and the transmittance was evaluated after three weeks of
exposure.
2.5. Cleaning aspects
Finally the effect of dry residue of different types of
water were measured in the same way as explained earlier,
where glass samples are sunk in a wooden frame, as shown
in Fig. 3, leaving a gap of respectively 1 mm, 3 mm and
5 mm between the top of the glass and the wood. The
set-up was placed horizontally, to allow vaporization of
the different amounts of water with their constituent parti-
cles and the transmission of light through the glass is mea-
sured. Different types of water were poured onto the glass
286 R. Appels et al. / Solar Energy 96 (2013) 283–291
Fig. 3. Sketch of the set-up to allow evaporation of the different water
solutions. Set-up placed horizontally.
and given enough time to evaporate. When evaporated, the
glass samples were cleaned on the bottom side and the
transmittance was measured.
Before the start of every experiment, all samples where
cleaned and measured. These measurements were used as
a reference.
3. Results and discussion
Five experiments were performed. First, the collection
of natural dust on glass samples and the influence of the
cleaning effect of rain is discussed, second, the effect of arti-
ficial dust with different particle size on the cover glass is
investigated, followed by an examination of the physical
properties of the collected dust using a scanning electron
microscope, next the effect of some special prototype coat-
ings are examined and lastly, the dry residue of different
types of water are measured.
3.1. Transmittance of natural dust deposition
The full line of 4 shows the decrease of the transmittance
for the glass samples that were subject to rainfall. It shows
Fig. 4. Transmittance over time (measured from 01/03 to 28/04 2011). Please note that the lines only connect the measuring points. The real transient
behavior will most likely be (irregular-) saw-toot like.
that after 5 weeks of exposure, the decrease in transmit-
tance saturates. This means that for the optimal tilt angle
in Flanders Belgium (approx. 35°) the transmittance
decrease saturates between 3% and 4%. Saturation, how-
ever, was not yet observed during the short measuring per-
iod for a tilt angle of 0°. The dotted line of 4 displays the
case where the glass samples were shielded from the rain.
The effect of rainfall on the transmittance is very clear
when comparing the samples with and without roof in 4.
The deposition of dust continues when the glass samples
cannot be cleaned by the rain, resulting in a continuing
decrease of transmittance. The conspicuous decrease of
transmittance between 35 and 58 days of exposure to dust
in the dotted line of 4 is caused by the high concentration
of airborne pollen (approx. 60 lm in size) in that period,
corresponding with the beginning of Spring in Belgium. 4
also indicates that dust deposition is a greater problem
for lower tilt angles.
3.2. Transmittance of artificial dust deposition
The values for the observed decrease in output power of
the two solar panels and the decrease in transmittance of
the glass samples with increasing (artificial) dust deposition
are comparable. 1 shows the results for the measurements
where white sand (250 lm), clay (68 lm) and cement
(10 lm) were used. 5 visualizes the transmittance of 1. Sim-
ilar results were found by Jiang et al. (2011), where an
other measurement technique - making dust airborne in a
test chamber - was used. 1 shows that transmittance and
power decrease are approximately the same. The small dif-
ference (<2.5%) is most likely caused by measurement
errors: first, the used method to distribute the dust is unli-
kely to give a perfect equal distribution of dust and sec-
ondly, the measurements were performed with natural
sunlight which has the tendency to fluctuate, even on a
 R. Appels et al. / Solar Energy 96 (2013) 283–291 287

Table 1
Transmittance and power decrease for sand, clay and cement. Abbreviations: Transmittance (T), Power (P) and solar panels Sanyo (S) and Eurosolare (E).
(g/m2) White sand (250 lm) Clay (68 lm) Cement (10 lm)
T (%) Pmax (%) T (%) Pmax (%) T (%) Pmax (%)
S E S E S E
0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 98.95 98.22 99.92 90.03 91.84 90.30 81.59 79.08 80.94
20 95.98 95.16 94.54 79.97 80.62 79.64 59.39 59.35 60.22
40 90.82 90.23 90.90 60.44 61.14 62.88 46.52 48.76 47.56
60 84.97 85.26 86.24 51.58 51.23 52.79 33.34 35.84 34.32

Fig. 5. Transmittance for artificial contamination by white sand, clay and cement.

clear day and it is not easy to perfectly reproduce the same
degree of dust deposition on the glass samples and the PV
modules. The bend in 5 for white sand and clay is most
likely caused by clustering of dust particles, where extra
added dust particles pile up on each other, adding more
mass per square meter, without an associated decrease in
transmittance, as confirmed by Beattie et al. (2012).
3.3. Physical properties of the collected dust
A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to
examine the dust that was collected on the glass samples.
6 and 7 shows that, a glass sample that was shielded from
the rain, was littered with pollen (approx. 60 lm in size).
A bigger magnification reveals that between the pollen a
blanket of particles ranging from 2 to 10 lm can be found.
8 and 9 shows the image of the surface of a glass sample that
was not shielded from the rain and reveals that the same
blanket of particles that can be categorized as ‘inhalable
coarse particles’ (Case et al., 2008) or particulate matter
(PM) between PM2.5 and PM10, is present on the surface
of the glass, but that the pollen have been completely
washed away by the rain. These glass samples were taken
inside right after a rain shower which means that the
blanket of fine dust particles is not removed by rainfall. This
experiment reveals why the transmittance never reaches
100%, not even after rainfall. 9 also reveals local spots on
the glass surface where bigger dust particles accumulate.
A possible explanation is that resin particles, probably from
pine, particles carried by the wind end up on the glass sur-
face and trap dust particles. Another possibility is that
water droplets evaporate and leave behind dust deposits.
3.4. The effect of special coatings
Prototype coated glass samples with three different types
of coatings were examined: an anti-reflection coating (AR),
a self cleaning coating (SC) and a multilayer coating (ML)
consisting of both AR and SC. These glass samples were set
up in a similar way as in 3.1. The glass samples were
exposed to atmospheric conditions during 3 weeks (from
the 5th of April 2011 to the 28th of April 2011). 2 shows
the results for the transmittance measurements. The
decrease in transmittance is least when ML coating is used.
The measurements show that the coatings improve the self-
cleaning properties of the glass samples. The saturation of
the transmittance was, however, not observed due to the
limited time of exposure. The economical potential of this
288 R. Appels et al. / Solar Energy 96 (2013) 283–291

Fig. 6. SEM image of the surface of a glass sample that was shielded from Fig. 9. SEM image of the surface of a glass sample that was not shielded
the rain (30° tilt angle). from the rain (30° tilt angle).

Table 2
Results transmittance measurements for the coated glass samples (3 weeks
exposure).
Type of coating Transmittance decrease (%)
Regular glass 2.63
Anti-reflection (AR) 1.75
Self cleaning (SC) 1.30
Multilayer (ML) 0.85

Fig. 7. SEM image of the surface of a glass sample that was shielded from
the rain (30° tilt angle). Identification pollen: (a) pine, (b) maple and (c)
oak.

Fig. 8. SEM image of the surface of a glass sample that was not shielded
from the rain (30° tilt angle).

solution depends heavily on the extra cost that comes with

the use of the coatings. This however is unknown during
the writing of this paper as these coatings are not yet avail-
able on the market. Fig. 10. Transmittance decrease due to dry residue after evaporation.
 R. Appels et al. / Solar Energy 96 (2013) 283–291
Fig. 11. Transmittance of glass samples with dry residue of hard tap water.
3.5. Cleaning aspects
Note that the distribution of dust (or other particles) on
the PV module will not be homogeneous. There are many
reasons for that, like for example (a) the turbulence on
the edge of the PV module is bigger than in the center,
which has a big impact as explained in the introduction,
(b) at the top of the module the cleaning effect of rain will
be less than at the bottom, due to the effect of rain striking
combined with rain run-off on the module, but on the other
hand, (c) the bottom of the module could see more dirt
deposit than the top, because it is exposed to more dirt, dis-
solved in the rainwater run-off, and (d) depending on the
tilt angle of the PV module with a mounting frame, there
may be some stagnant water at the bottom of the module,
increasing the effect of local soiling.
For this experiment, different types of water were cho-
sen and poured on glass samples, sunk for 1 mm, 3 mm
and 5 mm, as shown in 3 and allowed to be vaporized
before measuring. 10 shows the results of the transmittance
measured for every case. The types of water employed
were: (a) hard tap water, (b) soft tap water, (c) rainwater
captured at the start of a rainshower, (d) demineralized
water, namely water where all ions are removed, (e) osmo-
sis water made by using the reverse osmosis process, (f)
some ammonia dissolved in demineralized water, and (g)
some detergent dissolved in demineralized water.Osmosis
water, ammonia and detergent are often used by firms spe-
cialized in cleaning solar panels. Leuven, a city close to the
center of Belgium, is known for its hard tap water (34° f to
289
42° f2). The soft tap water used came from Beringen, in the
North-East of Belgium (10° f to 15° f). Looking at 10,
demineralized water gives the best result, closely followed
by osmosis water. The negative slope of the ‘osmosis
water’ line cannot readily be explained. However, the mea-
surement error of our system is larger than the difference
between the demineralized water and the osmosis water.
The vaporizing process was executed in our lab, which is
not a controlled dust-free environment. The uncertainty
of the measurements was not accurately determined. The
striking curve of rainwater is most likely caused by the cap-
turing of airborne dust particles when falling from the sky.
Although the previous experiments indicate that rain has a
cleaning effect on solar panels, at first rain will deposit air-
borne particles, making the panels dirtier. With continuing
rain, the precipitated airborne particles are removed by the
cleaner rain droplets. Of course, in reality, there will never
be a time where 5 mm of water stays stationary on a PV
panel and evaporates, but over the years, the repeated dust
deposition and evaporation of water results in a similar
effect and hence long term measurements are needed to
better understand this process. Manual and automatic
PV cleaning services are offered by emerging companies.
Whether or not these services are cost effective, special care
should be taken when using, for example, an automatic
sprinkler system to clean panels for two reasons. First,
when sprinkling water with a high amount of dissolved
2
French degrees.
290 R. Appels et al. / Solar Energy 96 (2013) 283–291
particles on non-hydrophobic glass,it can leave a small
amount of water, leaving a dry residue which can build
up over time. Secondly, the small amount of water stuck
to the glass can capture airborne dust particles - which
would otherwise have been removed from the air by the
rain - more easily. 11 gives more detailed information on
the transmittance effect for hard tap water after evapora-
tion and shows that the transmittance decrease depends
on the wavelength of the incident light.
4. Conclusion
The results presented show that the effect of dust depo-
sition or soiling in Belgium and by extension for the Köp-
pen climate classification: Cfb is responsible for a constant
power loss between 3% and 4%, which saturates after
approximately 5 weeks of exposure. Please note that these
results do not reflect a one year energy loss, further exper-
iments are needed. The results indicate that annual clean-
ing of photovoltaic modules will have virtually no effect
on the performance of the system. This, however, does
not mean that regular cleaning of photovoltaic modules
is unnecessary. The results only take into account the
effects of dust deposition. Photovoltaic modules are sub-
jected to other means of contamination like e.g. bird drop-
pings, fallen leafs, chemicals, growth of moss, etc. which
were not studied here. Rainfall seems to have a limited
effect on the saturation level of the power losses caused
by small dust particles (2–10 lm), although larger dust par-
ticles (pollen), on the other hand, are washed away after
every shower. The use of special coatings proves to be a
potential solution. However, it is going to be a challenge
to make these solutions cost-effective. When cleaning solar
panels with water, we suggest to use water with a low level
of hardness (<15° f). When using a detergent or diluted
ammonia, the surface must be rinsed afterwards (although
this is probably not cost effective nor efficient), and if pos-
sible, to dry the glass, as it otherwise becomes an ideal
deposition surface for dust particles, worsening instead of
improving the transmittance of the glass. Future work
could look at the cost-effectiveness of the cleaning methods
employed. For example, comparing all automatical and
manual washing methonds.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Imec for their financial support.
References
Adel, A.H., 2001. Effect of dust accumulation on solar transmittance
through glass covers of plate-type collectors. Renewable Energy 22 (4),
525–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(00)00093-8.
Andrews, R.W., Pearce, J.M., 2012. Prediction of energy effects on
photovoltaic systems due to snowfall events, pp. 3386–3391 doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2012.6318297.
Appels, R., Muthirayan, B., Beerten, A., Paesen, R., Driesen, J.,
Poortmans, J., 2012. The effect of dust deposition on photovoltaic
modules. In: 2012 38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference
(PVSC), pp. 1886–1889. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
PVSC.2012.6317961.
Beattie, N.S., Moir, R.S., Chacko, C., Buffoni, G., Roberts, S.H., Pearsall,
N.M., 2012. Understanding the effects of sand and dust accumulation
on photovoltaic modules. Renewable Energy 48 (0), 448–452. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.06.007.
Case, M.W., Williams, R., Yeatts, K., Chen, F.-L., Scott, J., Svendsen, E.,
Devlin, R.B., 2008. Evaluation of a direct personal coarse particulate
matter monitor. Atmospheric Environment 42 (19), 4446–4452. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.02.023.
Elminir, H.K., Ghitas, A.E., Hamid, R., El-Hussainy, F., Beheary, M.,
Khaled Abdel-Moneim, M., 2006. Effect of dust on the transparent
cover of solar collectors. Energy Conversion and Management 47 (18–
19), 3192–3203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2006.02.014.
El-Nashar, A.M., 2009. Seasonal effect of dust deposition on a field of
evacuated tube collectors on the performance of a solar desalination
plant. Desalination 239 (1–3), 66–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.desal.2008.03.007.
Garcı́a, E.L., Montes, C., Linares, A., Molina, D., Pı́o, A., González, O.,
Moncho, G., Padrón, M., Fernández, J., Rodrı́guez, J., Friend, M.,
Cendagorta, M., 2012. A cleanliness monitoring system for pv
installations. In: 27th EU PVSEC, 24–28 September 2012, Frankfurt.
Garg, H., 1974. Effect of dirt on transparent covers in flat-plate solar
energy collectors. Solar Energy 15 (4), 299–302. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0038-092(74)90019-X.
Goossens, D., Offer, Z., Zangvil, A., 1993. Wind tunnel experiments and
field investigations of eolian dust deposition on photovoltaic solar
collectors. Solar Energy 50 (1), 75–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0038-
092X(93)90009-D.
Hassan, A.H., Rahoma, U.A., Elminir, H.K., Fathy, A.M., 2005. Effect of
airborne dust concentration on the performance of pv modules.
Journal of the Astronomical Society of Egypt 13 (1), 24–38.
Hottel, H., Woertz, B., 1942. The performance of flat plate solar heat
collectors. ASME Transactions 64, 91–104.
Ibrahim, A., 2011. Effect of shadow and dust on the performance of silicon
solar cell. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research 1 (3), 222–
230.
Jiang, H., Lu, L., Sun, K., 2011. Experimental investigation of the impact
of airborne dust deposition on the performance of solar photovoltaic
(pv) modules. Atmospheric Environment 45, 4299–4304.
Jordan, D.C., Wohlgemuth, J.H., Kurtz, S.R., 2013. Technology and
climate trends in pv module degradation: Preprint. In: Conference
Presented at the 27th european photovoltaic solar energy conference,
Frankfurt, Germany. http://www.nrel.gov/pv/performance_reliability/
publications.html.
Kimber, A., Mitchell, L., Nogradi, S., Wenger, H., 2006. The effect of
soiling on large grid-connected photovoltaic systems in california and
the southwest region of the united states. In: Conference Record of the
2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion,
vol. 2, pp. 2391–2395. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
WCPEC.2006.279690.
Lee, C., Chiang, J., Lin, P., Nishimaniwa, O., Suzuki, K., Gan, L., Chen,
F., 2012. A systematic approach to examine the module performance
and loss distribution of grid-tied photovoltaic arrays. In: 27th EU
PVSEC, 24–28 September 2012, Frankfurt 27.
Mani, M., Pillai, R., 2010. Impact of dust on solar photovoltaic (pv)
performance: research status, challenges and recommendations.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (9), 3124–3131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.065.
Mohammad, S. E.-S., Fahmy, M.H., 1993. Degradation of photovoltaic
cell performance due to dust deposition on to its surface. Renewable
Energy 3 (6–7), 585–590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0960-
148(93)90064-N.
Mohammad, S. E.-S., Fahmy, M.H., 1993. Effect of dust with different
physical properties on the performance of photovoltaic cells. Solar
Energy 51 (6), 505–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0038-092(93)90135-
B.
 R. Appels et al. / Solar Energy 96 (2013) 283–291
Nahar, N., Gupta, J., 1999. Effect of dust on transmittance of glazing
materials for solar collectors under arid zone conditions of india. IEEE
Transactions on Electron Devices 46, 2133–2138.
Pavan, A.M., Mellit, A., De Pieri, D., 2011. The effect of soiling on energy
production for large-scale photovoltaic plants. Solar Energy 85 (5),
1128–1136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.03.006.
Qasem, H., Betts, T.R., Muellejans, H., AlBusairi, H., Gottschalg, R.,
2011. Dust effect on PV modules. In: Proceedings of 7th photovoltaic
science application and technology conference (PVSAT-7), Edinburgh,
UK, 6th–8th April.
Qasem, H., Betts, T.R., Gottschalg, R., 2011. Effect of dust on
photovoltaic thin film modules. In: Proceeding of the 7th Photovoltaic
Science Application and Technology Conference.
Rahoma, U.A., Hassan, A.H., 2010. Estimate of aerosol optical depth
using broadband direct normal observations at highest polluted area in
the world. American Journal of Applied Sciences 7 (5), 647–655.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2010.647.655.
Ransome, S., Sutterlueti, J., 2012. The sensitivity of lcoe to pv technology
including degradation, seasonal annealing, spectral and other effects.
In: 27th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhi-
bition, pp. 3082–3087. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4229/27thEUPV-
SEC2012-4CO.12.6.
Sakhuja, M., Son, J., Verma, L.K., Yang, H., Bhatia, C.S., Danner, A.J.,
2012. Omnidirectional study of nanostructured glass packaging for
291
solar modules. In: Progress in photovoltaics: Research and applica-
tions. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pip.2276.
Sayigh, A., Al-Jandal, S., Ahmed, H., 1985. Dust effect on solar flat
surfaces devices in kuwait. In: Proceedings of the workshop on the
physics of non-conventional energy sources and materials science for
energy, pp. 353–367.
Shelby, J.E., Vitko, J., Pantano, C.G., 1980. Weathering of glasses for
solar applications. Solar Energy Materials 3, 97–110.
Stridh, B., 2012. Evaluation of economical benefit of cleaning of soiling
and snow in pv plants at three european locations, pp. 1448–1451.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2012.6317869.
Vivar, M., Herrero, R., Antón, I., Martı́nez-Moreno, F., Moretón, R.,
Sala, G., Blakers, A.W., Smeltink, J., 2010. Effect of soiling in CPV
systems. Solar Energy 84 (7), 1327–1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2010.03.031.
Woyte, A., Nijs, J., Belmans, R., 2003. Partial shadowing of photovoltaic
arrays with different system configurations: literature review and field
test results. Solar Energy 74 (3), 217–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0038-092(03)00155-5.
Zorrilla-Casanova, J., Piliougine, M., Carretero, J., Bernaola-Galván, P.,
Carpena, P., Mora-López, L., Sidrach-de Cardona, M., 2013. Losses
produced by soiling in the incoming radiation to photovoltaic
modules. In: Progress in photovoltaics: Research and applications 21
(4), 790–796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pip.1258.