Performance evaluation of a rotary dehumidifier with molecular sieve desiccant using coupled regeneration mode: Experimental investigation

Mehare, Hussam Bin; Hussain, Taliv; Zia, Mohd Aqib; Saleem, Saif

doi:10.1016/j.enbenv.2023.10.008

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Liquid desiccant dehumidification is generally corrosive and consumes substantial energy for regeneration. Rotary dehumidification systems (RDSs) based on solid desiccants have gained increasing attention and recognition due to their simplistic structure, low energy consumption, and potent dehumidification capability, as stated in various studies [12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Investigation and Optimization of Composite Materials in Household Dehumidifiers

Liu,

Kong,

Zhao

et al. 2024

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficiency of household dehumidifiers is affected by air temperature and the temperature used for regeneration. A regeneration temperature that is too high can lead to increased energy use, heat build-up in the desiccant wheel, and lower dehumidification efficiency. In this study, we developed a LiCl@Al-Fum composite material and evaluated it through physical characterization and module testing. The results show that the LiCl@Al-Fum composite with a 20% mass fraction is particularly effective as a desiccant material. Additionally, a 15% volume concentration of neutral silica sol was identified as the optimal binder concentration. A comparative analysis of the effects of glass-fiber desiccant wheels (GF DWs), aluminum desiccant wheels (Al DWs), and commercial desiccant wheels (CM DWs) on household dehumidifier performance revealed that the Al DWs outperformed the CM DWs, showing a 13% improvement in the dehumidification rate and a 12.56% increase in the DCPP. An increase in the dehumidifier structure led to increases in the dehumidification rate by 11.8%, 11.9%, and 10% and in the DCPP by 11.6%, 12.1%, and 10%, respectively. Moreover, the modifications resulted in a 3.85 °C, 3.34 °C, and 3.8 °C decrease in the temperature.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%