Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Atmospheric water harvesting using small-scale vapour-compression systems offers a decentralised water source, but performance varies strongly with ambient psychrometric conditions. This study experimentally evaluates a compact propane (R290) atmospheric water generator with series-coupled evaporator and condenser airflow and develops a component-level model of its partially wet fin-and-tube evaporator. Three extended tests were used to characterise operation. Model predictions were compared with cumulative collected water using a dry–wet coil formulation and refrigerant-side capacity matching. The simulated cumulative water production differed from the measured value by 6%. In the two 24 h tests, the unit produced 7.0 L outdoors and 4.5 L indoors using 7.2 kWh in each case, corresponding to specific energy consumptions of 1.03 and 1.60 kWh L−1, respectively. Water production was higher under the more humid inlet conditions. The model predicted higher water production at the lower nominal fan setting, reaching approximately 0.50–0.54 L h−1. Predicted compressor power also increased. The analysed outdoor profile showed its highest production during the nocturnal high-humidity period; this is a profile-specific result rather than an annual operating window. The model provides a basis for comparing operating trends under different inlet conditions
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kutlu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: