AccScience Publishing / GTI / Volume 1 / Issue 1 / DOI: 10.36922/gti.6191
Submit to GTI
Cite this article
18
Download
128
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Experimental comparison of erythritol and erythritol-granite pebble mixtures as heat storage materials for solar cooking

Ashmore Mawire1* ,  Oyirwoth P. Abedigamba1,2
Show Less
1 Department of Physics, Material Science, Innovation and Modelling Research Focus Area, North-West University, Mahikeng, North West, South Africa
2 Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kyambogo University, Kyambogo, Uganda
GTI 2025, 1(1), 6191 https://doi.org/10.36922/gti.6191
Submitted: 18 November 2024 | Revised: 15 January 2025 | Accepted: 7 February 2025 | Published: 19 February 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

In this article, a comparison is presented between a pure latent heat storage system (erythritol) and a mixed storage system consisting of equal mass ratios of erythritol and granite pebbles (5 – 10 mm) for a solar cooking application. Two small black stainless cooking pots with a capacity of 1 L were placed inside two larger 5 L cooking pots to form simple storage cooking pots. The space between the pots was filled with thermal energy storage (TES) material. In the first configuration, the space between the pots was filled with 2 kg of erythritol. In the second configuration, the storage system consisted of 1 kg of erythritol and 1 kg of granite pebbles in the same space. The first experimental tests involved charging the storage cooking pots without any load for 4 h, followed by discharging them using heating loads in insulated wonder bags to evaluate off-sunshine cooking performance for another 4 h. The second experimental test involved simultaneous cooking and heat storage alternating between charging and discharging cycles. Experimental results showed that the mixed storage system achieved higher temperatures than the erythritol storage system during charging without cooking. During discharging cycles, the heat utilization rate was faster for the mixed storage system than for the erythritol storage system. Both storage systems enabled the cooking of multiple meals within an 8-h cooking period. However, at the end of the experiments, the erythritol storage system retained higher temperatures than the mixed storage system. Future work will focus on characterizing the thermophysical properties of the mixed storage system, optimizing the erythritol-to-granite mixing ratio for improved thermal performance, and investigating alternative, locally available TES materials – such as sandstone, marble, limestone, and xylitol – for potential use in mixed storage systems.

Keywords
Erythritol
Granite
Heat storage materials
Solar cooking
Funding
This research was funded by the NRF and SASOL through the Sasol-NRF Research Grant (138608): Development of low-cost standalone solar cookers with TES for decentralized communities.
Conflict of interest
Ashmore Mawire is an Editorial Board Member of this journal but was not in any way involved in the editorial and peer-review process conducted for this paper, directly or indirectly. Separately, other authors declared that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.
References
  1. Aramesh M, Ghalebani M, Kasaeian A, et al. A review of recent advances in solar cooking technology. Renew Energy. 2019;140:419-435. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.021

 

  1. Lentswe K, Mawire A, Owusu P, Shobo A. A review of parabolic solar cookers with thermal energy storage. Heliyon. 2021;7(10):e08226. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08226

 

  1. Coccia G, Aquilanti A, Tomassetti S, Comodi G, Di Nicola G. Design, realisation, and tests of a portable solar box cooker coupled with an erythritol-based PCM thermal energy storage. Solar Energy. 2020;201:530-540. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2020.03.031

 

  1. Anilkumar BC, Maniyeri R, Anish S. Optimum selection of phase change material for solar box cooker integrated with thermal energy storage unit using multi-criteria decision-making technique. J Energy Storage. 2021;40:102807. doi: 10.1016/j.est.2021.102807

 

  1. Goyal RK, Eswaramoorthy M. Theoretical and experimental analysis of box-type solar cooker with sensible heat storage. Solar Energy. 2024;268:112273. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2023.112273

 

  1. El Moussaoui N, Talbi S, Atmane I, et al. Feasibility of a new design of a parabolic trough solar thermal cooker (PSTC). Solar Energy. 2020;201:866-871. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2020.03.079

 

  1. Tawfik MA, Sagade AA, Palma-Behnke R, Abd Allah WE, Hanan ME. Performance evaluation of solar cooker with tracking type bottom reflector retrofitted with a novel design of thermal storage incorporated absorber plate. J Energy Storage. 2022;51:104432. doi: 10.1016/j.est.2022.104432

 

  1. Getnet MY, Gunjo DG, Sinha DK. Experimental investigation of thermal storage integrated indirect solar cooker with and without reflectors. Results Eng. 2023;18:101022. doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101022

 

  1. Khatri R, Goyal R, Sharma RV. Comparative experimental investigations on a low-cost solar cooker with energy storage materials for sustainable development. Results Eng. 2023;20:101546. doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101546

 

  1. Bhave AG, Kale CK. Development of a thermal storage type solar cooker for high temperature cooking using solar salt. Solar Energy Mater Solar Cells. 2020;208:110394. doi: 10.1016/j.solmat.2020.110394

 

  1. Senthil R. Enhancement of productivity of parabolic dish solar cooker using integrated phase change material. Mater Today Proc. 2021;34:386-388. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.197

 

  1. Mekonnen BA, Liyew KW, Tigabu MT. Solar cooking in Ethiopia: Experimental testing and performance evaluation of SK14 solar cooker. Case Stud Thermal Eng. 2020;22:100766. doi: 10.1016/j.csite.2020.100766

 

  1. Gorjian A, Rahmati E, Gorjian S, Anand A, Jathar LD. A comprehensive study of research and development in concentrating solar cookers (CSCs): Design considerations, recent advancements, and economics. Solar Energy. 2022;245:80-107. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2022.08.066

 

  1. Bhave AG, Thakare KA. Development of a solar thermal storage cum cooking device using salt hydrate. Solar Energy. 2018;171:784-789. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.07.018

 

  1. Abedigamba OP, Mndeme FS, Mawire A, Bahadur I. Thermo-physical properties and thermal energy storage performance of two vegetable oils. J Energy Storage. 2023;61:106774. doi: 10.1016/j.est.2023.106774

 

  1. Shaikh M, Uzair M, Raza SA. Optimization of thermal storage using different materials for cooking with solar power. Trans Canad Soc Mech Eng. 2021;46:490-502. doi: 10.1139/tcsme-2021-0160

 

  1. Mawire A, Lentswe K, Owusu P, et al. Performance comparison of two solar cooking storage pots combined with wonderbag slow cookers for off-sunshine cooking. Solar Energy. 2020;208:1166-1180. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2020.08.053

 

  1. Mullick S, Kandpal T, Saxena A. Thermal test procedure for box-type solar cookers. Solar Energy. 1987;39:353-360. doi: 10.1016/S0038-092X(87)80021-X

 

  1. Verma S, Banerjee S, Das R. A fully analytical model of a box solar cooker with sensible thermal storage. Solar Energy. 2022;233:531-542. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2021.12.035

 

  1. Dev A, Amatya S, Dumre Y, Shah M, Baral B. Exploring aluminum as a solid thermal storage medium for solar cooking application: An experimental investigation coupled with numerical modeling using OpenFOAM. Heliyon. 2024;10(21):e39855. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39855

 

  1. Osei M, Staveland O, McGowan S, et al. Phase change thermal storage: Cooking with more power and versatility. Solar Energy. 2021;220:1065-1073. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2021.03.040

 

  1. Yadav V, Yadav A. Experimental investigation of novel design of solar cooker with dual thermal storage unit based on parabolic dish-type collector. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2013;14:295-310. doi: 10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2015011429

 

  1. Yadav V, Kumar Y, Agrawal H, Yadav A. Thermal performance evaluation of solar cooker with latent and sensible heat storage unit for evening cooking. Aust J Mech Eng. 2017;15:93-102. doi: 10.1080/14484846.2015.1093260

 

  1. Mawire A, Lentswe K, Owusu P. Performance of two solar cooking storage pots using parabolic dish solar concentrators during solar and storage cooking periods with different heating loads. Results Eng. 2022;13:100336. doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100336

 

  1. Li B, Ju F. Thermal stability of granite for high-temperature thermal energy storage in concentrating solar power plants. Appl Energy. 2018;138:409-416. doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.04.071

 

  1. Lugolole R, Mawire A, Lentswe KA, Okello D, Nyeinga K. Thermal performance comparison of three sensible heat thermal energy storage systems during charging cycles. Sustain Energy Technol Assess. 2018;30:37-51. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2018.09.002

 

  1. Lugolole R, Mawire A, Okello D, Lentswe KA, Nyeinga K, Shobo AB. Experimental analyses of sensible heat thermal energy storage systems during discharging. Sustain Energy Technol Assess. 2019;35:117-130. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2019.06.007

 

  1. Saxena A, Joshi SK, Gupta P, Tirth V, Suryavanshi A, Singh DB, Sethi M. An experimental comparative analysis of the appropriateness of different sensible heat storage materials for solar cooking. J Energy Storage. 2023;61:106761. doi: 10.1016/j.est.2023.106761

 

  1. Zhang S, Li Y, Yan Y. Hybrid sensible-latent heat thermal energy storage using natural stones to enhance heat transfer: Energy, exergy, and economic analysis. Energy. 2024;286:129530. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2023.129530

 

  1. Cho WJ, Kwon S, Choi JW. The thermal conductivity of granite with various water contents. Eng Geol. 2009;107:167-171. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.05.012

 

  1. R.S. Online. Sefram DAS 240 Multipurpose Data Logger, Ethernet, USB; 2024. Available from: https://za.rs-online. com/web/p/data-loggers/1259517?gb=s [Last accessed on 2025 Jan 14].

 

  1. Campbell Scientific. CMP11 Pyranometer; 2024. Available from: https://www.campbellsci.co.za/cmp11 [Last accessed on Jan 14].

 

  1. Takealot. Erythritol Price; 2025. Available from: https://www. takealot.com/sweet-nothings-erythritol-600g-sweetener/ PLID71884468 [Last accessed on 2025 Jan 14].

 

  1. Builders. Granite Price; 2025. Available from: https://www. buildersmerchant.co.za/collections/gravel-aggregates-supplier-dolomite-granite-silica-quartz/products/13mm-crushed-stone-aggregate-4-ton-pink?variant=31836271968336 [Last accessed on 2025 Jan 14].   
                                                                 
Previous article in this issue
Next article in this issue
Share
Back to top
Green Technology & Innovation, Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept