Table 3.
Comparison of the present study with recent literature on enhanced tubular solar stills.
| Ref | Enhancement strategy | Key materials used | Daily water productivity (L·m⁻2·day⁻1) | Thermal efficiency (%) | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sharshir et al. 26 | Nanocoated internal mushroom structure | Carbon black (25–75 g·m⁻2) | 3.20 | 59.05 | Nanocarbon coating significantly enhanced absorption and evaporation rate |
| Abdelaziz et al. 27 | Wick + nanofluid + corrugated basin | CB nanoparticles + PCM | 4.10 | 55–60 | Synergistic effect of wick and nanomaterials improved productivity by ~ 89% |
| Sharshir et al. 28 | Thin-film evaporation layer | Carbonized wood + CB | 3.45 | 52.8 | Optimized porous carbon layer enhanced thin-film evaporation |
| Sambare et al. 29 | Sensible heat storage | Wire mesh / steel pieces | 2.85 | 44.6 | Wire mesh improved heat retention and evaporation |
| Essa et al. 30 | Wick + nanocomposite | Jute / cotton + graphene–TiO2 | 4.20 | 58.7 | Wick–nanocomposite coupling significantly boosted yield |
| Amin et al. 33 | Heat exchanger + PCM + concentrator | Beeswax PCM + PTC | 8.06 | 54.04 | High productivity achieved using concentrator-assisted heating |
| Noman et al. 36 | Bio-waste porous absorber | Custard apple seeds | 3.10 | 46.2 | Low-cost bio-porous media improved evaporation |
| Present study | Hybrid nanomaterial–porous coating | CQDs + sponge | 3.66 | 57.28 | Synergistic photothermal absorption and capillary-driven evaporation |