PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 24, 2025Solar RRL6 citationsOpen Access

Hybrid Data‐Driven Modeling and Prediction of Photovoltaic Soiling Losses: Balancing Accuracy and Simplicity

View Full Paper
JTJohn A. TsanakasEPEric PilatSASebastien Arbaretaz

Key Points

  • Prediction errors for soiling losses range from 1% to 2.6% over an 8-day forecast period.
  • The stochastic quantifying soiling loss method effectively characterizes soiling phases and patterns.
  • Machine learning models successfully capture seasonal soiling variations using environmental parameters.
  • Field studies confirm the location dependency of soiling patterns at a utility-scale photovoltaic plant in Spain.

Abstract

Photovoltaic (PV) system efficiency is significantly affected by soiling, leading to energy losses and increased operational costs. Within the SERENDI‐PV and CACTUS projects, this study refines soiling loss modeling through two complementary approaches: the stochastic quantifying soiling loss (SQSL) method and a machine learning (ML)‐based predictive model. SQSL quantifies soiling losses using electrical performance data, independent of meteorological inputs, while the ML model forecasts losses using environmental parameters such as temperature, humidity, wind speed, and particulate matter concentration. The SQSL method identifies soiling phases—cleaning periods, stable periods, and soiling periods—by analyzing PV performance trends. Monte Carlo simulations generate probable soiling profiles, assessing uncertainty and informing maintenance strategies. Additionally, SQSL enables classification of soiling accumulation patterns, distinguishing between gradual and rapid soiling events. The ML‐based approach integrates artificial neural networks and regression models to predict soiling losses, applying data preprocessing techniques to enhance accuracy. Regional climate variations and site‐specific soiling characteristics are incorporated to improve predictive performance. Preliminary results validate the robustness of both methodologies. SQSL‐generated profiles align closely with observed soiling trends, and ML models effectively capture seasonal variations. Field studies at a utility‐scale PV plant in Spain further demonstrate the location dependency of soiling patterns. Comparative analysis of SQSL predictions and real soiling measurements shows prediction errors between 1% and 2.6% over an 8‐day forecast period. These findings support the integration of predictive soiling models into PV monitoring platforms, optimizing maintenance strategies, and minimizing energy yield losses.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Tsanakas et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d6d8978b2b6861e4c3ecb1https://doi.org/10.1002/solr.202500576
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Time Series Analysis of Photovoltaic Soiling Station Data: Version 1.0, August 20172017 · 29 citations
  2. 2Artificial neural network modeling and sensitivity analysis for soiling effects on photovoltaic panels in Morocco2017 · 55 citations
  3. 3The Effect of Soiling on Large Grid-Connected Photovoltaic Systems in California and the Southwest Region of the United States2006 · 322 citations
  4. 4Review and Comparison of Methods for Soiling Modeling in Large Grid-Connected PV Plants2024 · 14 citations
  5. 5Optimizing Photovoltaic Soiling Loss Predictions in Louisiana: A Comparative Study of Measured and Modeled Data Using a Novel Approach2025 · 9 citations