Performance study of thermoelectric dehumidification system integrated with heat pipe heatsink

Lertsatitthanakorn, C.; Bamroongkhan, P.; Jamradloedluk, J.

doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2023.100901

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Air dehumidification can be achieved through two primary methods: condensing dehumidification and desiccant dehumidification. Condensing dehumidification methods include compressing dehumidification [2], thermoelectric dehumidification [3,4], and heat pump dehumidification [5,6], among others. Desiccant dehumidification methods include liquid desiccant dehumidification [7,8] and solid desiccant dehumidification [9,10].…”

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