Butkowski - Evert 1

Introduction

In order for anything to operate at full capacity, be it a living being or electrically

powered source, energy is required. One of the primary sources of energy comes from the

sun. It gives off so much energy that it would dwarf whatever renewable or nonrenewable

source that could ever be used. This energy can then be harnessed and transferred to

electrical energy by photovoltaic solar panels (Crabtree). Many people have solar panels

installed on their houses as a means of providing energy to the electrical appliances

within their home. According to the article, “Solar Panels Just Broke Another Record in

the U.S”,​ there are now over 20 gigawatts of solar panels operating in the U.S. alone and

this number is rapidly increasing. This can power 4.6 million homes. ​However, solar

panels can have their power output reduced both by debris covering the panels and the

absence of solar energy during hours when the sun is not up.

The purpose of this experiment is to compare the effects different types of debris

have on the voltage output of photovoltaic solar panels. This experiment was intended to

determine which region, such as a desert, oceanic, or grassland, solar panels would be

most effective in and improve the knowledge of the reflectivity of certain materials. This

would benefit solar panel owners because they could be more knowledgeable about the

region they are living in. Solar panel making companies can benefit because selling solar

panels in a region with the least reflectivity will produce a greater profit and selling solar

panels in a region with the more reflectivity will produce a less profit due to the amount

of informed customers.
 Butkowski - Evert 2

This experiment was done in a dark room, with a single lamp, and a photovoltaic

solar panel. Using a voltmeter, a reading of the initial output of volts was recorded. Then,

5 mL of different types of debris - sand, soil, and salt - was placed on the solar panel one

at a time. The final voltage output was recorded. This method supports the goal because

the debris will reflect light from hitting the solar panel. This will reduce the number of

volts the solar panel produces and the difference between the different types of debris

reflectivity can be quantified. The different types of debris - salt, sand, and soil - were

used because they are the most common aerosols in the air that affect solar panels and

each have a different reflectivity. Aerosols absorb then re-emit, or reflect, photons of

light which will produce a different change in voltage on the solar panel depending on

how many photons reach the solar panel. The hypothesis that salt will have the least

change is because their white color will cause them to reflect the photons, while the sand

will have the greatest change because it reflects and absorbs, then re-emits the photons.

Soil will have an effect in between these because it absorbs, then re-emits photons in a

different direction.

There are many practical applications to this research. The first application is

determining the region solar panels will be most effective in. If soil has the least

reflectivity, then solar panels should be concentrated where only soil debris, not salt or

sand debris, could affect the voltage output, such as a grassland region, therefore,

powering more homes in an eco-friendly way. If soil has the greatest reflectivity, then

solar panels should not be concentrated next to a grassland region because the debris will

affect the voltage output of the solar panel. This does not mean that solar panels should
 Butkowski - Evert 3

be located only in that area, other areas are also useful for producing energy through solar

panels.

Since a result of this experiment was determining which type of debris had the

greatest or least reflectivity, this research can be applied anywhere on an outside

reflective surface. The windows on a house could block more sunlight from entering if

they are covered in the debris with the greatest reflectivity than if they were covered in

debris with the least reflectivity. This could be useful for deciding the location of where

to put a greenhouse that uses natural sunlight to grow plants instead of artificial. Natural

light increases the amount of nutrients in food, and nutrients are necessary to life.
 Butkowski - Evert 4

Review of Literature

To understand this research, one must first have a basic understanding of the

scientific principles that apply and have some knowledge of the design behind the

experiment. By comparing the experimental design of this project with that of others, an

appropriate hypothesis was formed and an experiment carried out to test this hypothesis.

Among the research done ahead of time, previous experiments and informational pieces

of literature were found that focused on topics similar to this experiment and provided

information that was useful for determining the hypothesis and experimental design.

What are solar panels, how do they work, and what are the ideas behind this

process? The solar panel used in this experiment is a photovoltaic (PV) module. This

model differs from monocrystalline and polycrystalline powered panels because it is

cheaper and less efficient. However, they are the most popular panels to buy making

them ideal for this experiment because it will apply to more people. The photovoltaic

module consists of many photovoltaic cells, the orchestrators of this conversion. This

occurs because the solar panel allows for photons, or particles of light, to knock electrons

free from atoms, thereby generating a flow of electricity in the direction that the cell

allows (Dahr). The electricity that the solar panel stores is then sent to the house’s

electrical panel to provide electricity for the appliances within the house. Some

companies which install solar panels also provide a service for cleaning them. It is

questioned then, is the percent power reduction truly something that needs to be worried

about? According to the article, “Cleaning Your Solar Panels”, the power reduction only

accounts for a $20 loss in an energy bill because the power reduction percentage is very
 Butkowski - Evert 5

small, being at around 5% or less of a decrease in output and efficiency. However, certain

experiments have shown that this is not the case, and that debris accumulation on solar

panels has a much larger impact on the percent reduction in power. This, in turn, could

cause poor performance of certain electronic appliances within a solar-powered house or

additional loss on an energy bill do to solar energy not being converted to electricity due

to an unclean solar panel.

One of the experiments researched had a very similar purpose to this experiment;

to determine the percent reduction that dust accumulation had on solar cell performance

on solar panels. This experiment was carried out by ​Rachid Karmouch, an assistant

professor at the University of Jazan in Jazan, Saudi Arabia, along with four students of

the university. The researchers first examined previous work done on the topic, finding

multiple sources all with varying results. To resolve this issue, they placed solar panels at

different angles on the roof of a building at the university, and took weekly

measurements of efficiency, current, and voltage of the solar panel. The researchers

allowed for the climate to produce the dust samples on the solar panels, and noted dust

particle characteristics and composure. This data was collected each Monday over a 16

week period, and used to determine the percent reduction in production efficiency of the

solar panel. As the solar panels were left in an uncontrolled environment, climate changes

such as rain and other natural occurrences within the region may have had an effect on

the results of this experiment. These environmental changes may have resulted in a larger

percent reduction than in other cases, as the weather conditions throughout the

experiment showed a similar trend on both of the tested solar panels, this being a
 Butkowski - Evert 6

reduction in efficiency. At the end of the 16 week period, the results of the experiment

show a reduction in efficiency of 10.4% for the solar panel tilted at 30 degrees, and a net

reduction in efficiency of 9.7% for the solar panel tilted at 55 degrees.

Karmouch’s experiment is similar to this experiment in the fact that debris is used

to measure the decrease in the voltage output in a solar panel. However, these

experiments are different, because this experiment is set in a controlled lab and the solar

panels are not tilted. Any debris in the air could have collected on their solar panels,

whereas the debris on the solar panel in this lab was only composed of soil, salt, or sand.

While Karmouch’s experiment showed the percent reduction in the efficiency of the solar

panel, and this experiment determined the percent decrease in the voltage of the solar

panel, his experiment did not determine the type of debris that had the greatest effect on

the decrease in efficiency of his solar panels, as this experiment does. Nevertheless,

Karmouch’s experiment led to the idea that the decrease in voltage could be measured

and used to determine the effect each type of debris has on the voltage output of a solar

panel when compared to other types of debris.

Another experiment, performed by Min Cuia, and six others who all work with

semiconductor materials in China, shows that a high temperature of the solar panel

reduces its efficiency. In this experiment, different solar cells were shown and fabricated,

which could have had human error in making them. These cells were tested outside over

the course of months and the change in temperatures of the back and front of the cells

was recorded. They then created a theoretical model of thermal conduction and

constructed a calculation of solar temperatures. While the work they did was highly
 Butkowski - Evert 7

theoretical, it also underlined the fact that the solar panels in the experiment need to be

kept at the same temperature throughout the course of the experiment in order to reduce

error due to the equipment.

The problem presented by the experiment performed by Min Cuia was addressed

in the procedure. Using the Cen-Tech thermometer the solar panel’s temperature can be

measured multiple times throughout the course of the experiment. The procedure says to

check the temperature of the solar panel to make sure it has not exceeded a 3° F change

from the first time the temperature was measured. If it has, the solar panel is moved to a

dark place to cool down so that it is within 3° F of the initial temperature reading.

According to, “Aerosols: Tiny Particles, Big Impact”, by Adam Voiland, photons

come from the sun through a process called nuclear fusion. The photons travel to Earth,

but most are reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere and aerosols in the Earth’s air.

Aerosols are any particles, liquid or solid, that are in the air. Some of the most common

ones are salt and dust, such as sand or topsoil, which are the debris types tested in this

experiment. They concentrate around dryer areas, coastlines, and urban areas. They

reflect some and absorb the rest of the photons that hit them, depending on the aerosol’s

color and composition. This relates to this experiment because the debris placed on the

solar panel serves as an aerosol and blocks the light from hitting the solar panel and being

converted into energy. ​Since salt is a light color, it will reflect more photons of light,

supporting the hypothesis that salt will have the least amount of change in the voltage

output of the solar panel. Sand is darker than salt, but lighter than dirt, meaning it will
 Butkowski - Evert 8

reflect the sunlight away from the panel and absorb the rest of the heat and light that is

not reflected instead of just doing one or the other.

After examining the background information necessary to understand the

scientific concepts behind the experiment, as well as prior research on the topic, an

experimental design and hypothesis was decided upon. The experimental design accounts

for mistakes in previous experiments, such as keeping the solar panels in a controlled

environment for the entirety of the project and keeping the solar panels at a similar

temperature. The hypothesis takes the color of each type of debris into account.
 Butkowski - Evert 9

Problem Statement

Problem Statement​:

To compare the effects different types of debris have on the voltage output of

photovoltaic solar panels.

Hypothesis​:

If salt is added to a solar panel it will have the least amount of change in the

voltage output of the solar panel when compared to dirt and sand. If sand is added to a

solar panel it will have the greatest amount of change in the voltage output of the solar

panel when compared to dirt and salt.

Data Measured​:

The independent variables in the experiment are the types of debris that are being

compared in milliliters: topsoil, sand, and salt. The dependent variable is the voltage of

the solar panels in volts. There will be a total of 90 trials conducted, 30 for each type of

debris. A two-sample ​t​ test will be used to compare the mean effects that the type of

debris has on the voltage of a solar panel.

 Butkowski - Evert 10

Experimental Design

Materials​:

.285 m x .205 m Uni-Solar Solar Panel Lamp Stand

10 mL Beaker Mercer 9301 Voltmeter
50 mL Beaker Morton Iodized Salt (150 mL)
(2) Alligator Clips Quikrete Premium Play Sand (150 mL)
Cen-Tech Thermometer Scotts Turf Builder Lawn Soil (200 mL)
Glass Plate Sprayco SuperMist
Kirkland Signature Plastic Food Wrap Utilitech 1100 Lumen Bulb

Procedure​:

Preparing the Experiment

1. Dry the lawn soil before using it in the experiment. Put 200 mL of dirt on an
oven-safe pan and bake it in the oven for 90 minutes at 375 °F. When the soil is
dry, crumble the dirt chunks into smaller chunks by applying pressure and rolling
a handful of dirt across the palms of hands. Then sift through the dirt with fingers
and throw away any rocks, twigs, or chunks of dirt that are greater than 0.002 m.

2. Move to the MMSTC locker room or another dark room. Attach the wires of the
solar panel to the voltmeter using alligator clips and position the solar panel so
that the 0.285 m side is touching the bottom of the lamp stand (Figure 2) and so
that it can be moved to be perpendicular to the light source and removed to put
dust on it and clean it (​Solar Panel Maintenance​). Keep the light source 0.41 m
above the solar panel. The voltmeter should be measuring at the 20 volt DC level.

Process of Randomization

3. To randomize the debris type used for each trial, use the randomization function
of a TI-nSpire Calculator. Assign a number for each debris type, and continue the
randomization process until each number comes up 30 times.

Applying the Lawn Soil Quantities

4. Measure the initial temperature of the solar panel using the thermometer by
placing it on the solar panel and holding the central button for 3 seconds. This
value does not have to be recorded. Turn the overhead lights off and the lamp on.
Record the initial voltage produced by the solar panel using the voltmeter.

5. Spread 5 mL of dirt over the solar panel. Move the dirt so that every panel cell is
covered and allow it to settle for 30 seconds. The lights may be on for this.
 Butkowski - Evert 11

6. Turn the lights off and the lamp on. Make sure the solar panel is perpendicular to
the lamp and check the temperature of the solar panel to make sure it has not
exceeded a 3 °F change from the initial temperature. If it has, give the panel
enough time to cool down so that it is within 3 °F of the initial temperature
reading. Record the final voltage produced using the voltmeter.

7. Clean the solar panel off using tap water and towels to wipe it down and dry it.
Repeat this step until the solar panel has a voltage output similar to its initial
voltage. (Pickerel)

8. Repeat steps four to seven every time the assigned number comes up during the
randomization process for a total of 30 trials.

Applying the Sand Quantities

9. Measure the initial temperature of the solar panel using the thermometer by
placing it on the solar panel and holding the central button for 3 seconds. This
value does not have to be recorded. Turn the overhead lights off and the lamp on.
Record the initial voltage produced by the solar panel using the voltmeter.

10. Spread 5 mL of sand over the solar panel. Move the sand so that every panel cell
is covered and allow it to settle for 30 seconds. The lights may be on for this.

11. Turn the lights off and the lamp on. Make sure the solar panel is perpendicular to
the lamp and check the temperature of the solar panel to make sure it has not
exceeded a 3 °F change from the initial temperature. If it has, give the panel
enough time to cool down so that it is within 3 °F of the initial temperature
reading. Record the final voltage produced using the voltmeter.

12. Clean the solar panel off using tap water and towels to wipe it down and dry it.
Repeat this step until the solar panel has a voltage output similar to its initial
Voltage. (Pickerel)

13. Repeat steps nine to twelve every time the assigned number comes up during the
randomization process for a total of 30 trials.

Applying the Salt Solution

14. Measure the initial temperature of the solar panel using the thermometer by
placing it on the solar panel and holding the central button for 3 seconds. This
value does not have to be recorded. Turn the overhead lights off and the lamp on.
Record the initial voltage produced by the solar panel using the voltmeter.
 Butkowski - Evert 12

15. Cut out a 0.285 m by 0.205 m piece of saran wrap and place it on a glass plate.
Measure out 5 mL of salt using the 10 mL beaker and distribute it evenly over the
saran wrap. Use the Spray Mist to mist water on the salt so that all the salt
granules have absorbed some water. The overhead lights may be on for this.
(Anderson/ ​Sulaiman​)

16. Place the glass plate with the saran wrap, salt, and water in the microwave. Heat
the solution for 10 seconds, then open the door and wait for 5 seconds before
heating the solution for another 10 seconds. (Anderson/ ​Sulaiman​)

17. Move the saran wrap and salt solution from the microwave to the solar panel and
spread the saran wrap out evenly on the solar panel. (Anderson/ ​Sulaiman​)

18. Turn the lights off and the lamp on. Make sure the solar panel is perpendicular to
the lamp and check the temperature of the solar panel to make sure it has not
exceeded a 3 °F change from the initial temperature. If it has, give the panel
enough time to cool down so that it is within 3 °F of the initial temperature
reading. Record the final voltage produced using the voltmeter.

19. Clean the saran wrap using tap water and towels to wipe it down and dry it.
Record the voltage. Take the saran wrap off of the solar panel and clean the solar
panel off using tap water and towels to wipe it down and dry it. Repeat this step
until the solar panel has a voltage output similar to its initial voltage. (Pickerel)

20. Repeat steps fifteen to nineteen every time the assigned number comes up during
the randomization process for a total of 30 trials.

21. A total of 90 trials should be conducted, 30 for each debris type; dirt, sand, and
salt.
 Butkowski - Evert 13

Diagram​:

Figure 1. Materials

Figure 1, above, is a labeled picture of all the materials used in the experiment.

The oven and microwave are not shown.

Figure 2. Initial Experimental Setup

Figure 2, above, shows the lamp stand and light source at a 90° angle to one of the

solar panels and the 0.285 m side of the solar panel is touching the bottom of the lamp

stand. The voltmeter is on and attached to the solar panel using alligator clips. The

voltage is being measured using the voltmeter at the 20 volt DC level.

 Butkowski - Evert 14

Figure 3. Final Experimental Setup

Figure 3, above, shows the lamp stand and light source at a 90° angle to one of the

solar panels with a sand trial on it. The voltage is being measured using the voltmeter at

the 20 volt DC level. The change in voltage from figure 2 to figure 3 is 0.9 volts.
 Butkowski - Evert 15

Data and Observations

Table 1
Lawn Soil Trial Data
Trial Starting Voltage (V) Ending Voltage (V) Difference (V) % Difference (%)
1 7.90 7.08 0.82 10.38
2 7.90 7.40 0.50 6.33
3 7.84 7.23 0.61 7.78
4 7.90 7.23 0.67 8.48
5 7.89 7.26 0.63 7.98
6 7.94 7.35 0.59 7.43
7 7.95 7.36 0.59 7.42
8 7.97 7.44 0.53 6.65
9 7.89 7.20 0.69 8.75
10 7.85 7.35 0.50 6.37
11 7.85 7.03 0.82 10.45
12 7.92 7.33 0.59 7.45
13 7.85 6.93 0.92 11.72
14 7.93 7.46 0.47 5.93
15 7.85 6.90 0.95 12.10
16 7.98 7.36 0.62 7.77
17 7.94 7.23 0.71 8.94
18 7.95 7.06 0.89 11.19
19 7.93 7.26 0.67 8.45
20 7.93 7.18 0.75 9.46
21 7.93 7.11 0.82 10.34
22 7.93 7.17 0.76 9.58
23 7.89 7.12 0.77 9.76
24 7.91 7.27 0.64 8.09
25 7.89 6.97 0.92 11.66
26 7.90 7.07 0.83 10.51
 Butkowski - Evert 16

Trial Starting Voltage (V) Ending Voltage (V) Difference (V) % Difference (%)
27 7.91 7.27 0.64 8.09
28 7.89 7.20 0.69 8.75
29 7.89 7.05 0.84 10.65
30 7.87 7.12 0.75 9.53

Table 1 shows the results of the lawn soil trials. Starting Voltage is the voltage

recorded before the soil was distributed and Ending Voltage is the recorded voltage after

the soil was distributed. The Difference column shows the difference between the

Starting and Ending voltages and the % Difference column is the Difference divided by

the Starting Voltage. A sample calculation is shown in Appendix A.

Table 2
Sand Trial Data
Trial Starting Voltage (V) Ending Voltage (V) Difference (V) % Difference (%)
1 7.99 7.19 0.80 10.01
2 7.93 7.25 0.68 8.58
3 7.93 7.17 0.76 9.58
4 7.90 7.06 0.84 10.63
5 7.87 7.16 0.71 9.02
6 7.87 7.06 0.81 10.29
7 7.85 7.15 0.70 8.92
8 7.89 7.03 0.86 10.90
9 7.91 7.04 0.87 11.00
10 7.87 7.08 0.79 10.04
11 7.89 7.04 0.85 10.77
12 7.83 7.15 0.68 8.68
13 7.84 6.99 0.85 10.84
14 7.84 7.06 0.78 9.95
15 7.85 7.04 0.81 10.32
 Butkowski - Evert 17

Trial Starting Voltage (V) Ending Voltage (V) Difference (V) % Difference (%)
16 7.89 7.08 0.81 10.27
17 7.90 7.06 0.84 10.63
18 7.90 7.10 0.80 10.13
19 7.92 7.04 0.88 11.11
20 7.88 6.99 0.89 11.29
21 7.87 7.05 0.82 10.42
22 7.88 6.96 0.92 11.68
23 7.88 7.10 0.78 9.90
24 7.93 7.03 0.90 11.35
25 7.93 7.05 0.88 11.10
26 7.94 7.10 0.84 10.58
27 7.87 7.01 0.86 10.93
28 7.93 7.14 0.79 9.96
29 7.89 7.06 0.83 10.52
30 7.90 7.10 0.80 10.13

Table 2 shows the results of the sand trials. Starting Voltage is the voltage

recorded before the sand was distributed and Ending Voltage is the recorded voltage after

the sand was distributed. The Difference column shows the difference between the

Starting and Ending Voltages and the % Difference column is the Difference divided by

the Starting Voltage. A sample calculation is shown in Appendix A.

Table 3
Salt Trial Data

Trial Starting Ending Adjusted Difference % Difference

Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Voltage (V) (V) (%)
1 7.90 7.67 7.72 0.18 2.28
2 7.88 7.66 7.71 0.17 2.16
3 7.88 7.66 7.71 0.17 2.16
 Butkowski - Evert 18

Trial Starting Ending Adjusted Difference % Difference

Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Voltage (V) (V) (%)
4 7.87 7.67 7.72 0.15 1.91
5 7.87 7.64 7.69 0.18 2.29
6 7.86 7.66 7.71 0.15 1.91
7 7.86 7.67 7.72 0.14 1.78
8 7.86 7.66 7.71 0.15 1.91
9 7.85 7.65 7.70 0.15 1.91
10 7.85 7.62 7.67 0.18 2.29
11 7.84 7.64 7.69 0.15 1.91
12 7.83 7.62 7.67 0.16 2.04
13 7.83 7.62 7.67 0.16 2.04
14 7.83 7.60 7.65 0.18 2.30
15 7.83 7.62 7.67 0.16 2.04
16 7.90 7.70 7.75 0.15 1.90
17 7.91 7.71 7.76 0.15 1.90
18 7.90 7.70 7.75 0.15 1.90
19 7.90 7.69 7.74 0.16 2.03
20 7.90 7.70 7.75 0.15 1.90
21 7.90 7.69 7.74 0.16 2.03
22 7.92 7.68 7.73 0.19 2.40
23 7.89 7.68 7.73 0.16 2.03
24 7.89 7.68 7.73 0.16 2.03
25 7.89 7.66 7.71 0.18 2.28
26 7.88 7.68 7.73 0.15 1.90
27 7.88 7.68 7.73 0.15 1.90
28 7.87 7.66 7.71 0.16 2.03
29 7.88 7.67 7.72 0.16 2.03
30 7.87 7.67 7.72 0.15 1.91
 Butkowski - Evert 19

Table 3 shows the results of the salt trials. Starting Voltage is the voltage recorded

before the salt was distributed and Ending Voltage is the recorded voltage after the salt

was distributed. The Adjusted Voltage accounts for the saran wrap being on the solar

panel by adding the difference the saran wrap made to the Ending Voltage. The

Difference column shows the difference between the Starting and Adjusted Voltages and

the % Difference column is the Difference divided by the Starting Voltage. Sample

calculations are shown in Appendix A.

Table 4
Lawn Soil Trial Observations
Trial Observations

1 75.1° F, New Day, Low Ending Voltage, Large Difference

2 74.7° F, Large Granules, High Ending Voltage, Small Difference

3 74.3° F, Low Starting Voltage

4 73.9° F

5 72.2° F, Small Granules

6 72.0° F, High Ending Voltage, Small Difference

7 71.8° F, High Starting Voltage, High Ending Voltage, Small Difference

71.4° F, Large Granules, High Starting Voltage, High Ending Voltage, Small
8 Difference

9 74.4° F, New Day

73.6° F, Large Granules, Low Starting Voltage, High Ending Voltage, Small
10 Difference

11 72.6° F, Low Starting Voltage, Low Ending Voltage, Large Difference

12 71.8° F, High Ending Voltage, Small Difference

71.3° F, Small Granules, Low Starting Voltage, Low Ending Voltage, Large
13 Difference
 Butkowski - Evert 20

Trial Observations

14 70.9° F, Large Granules, High Ending Voltage, Small Difference

70.3° F, Small Granules, Low Starting Voltage, Low Ending Voltage, Large
15 Difference

16 75.3° F, New Day, High Starting Voltage, High Ending Voltage

17 74.7° F, Broke Granules into Smaller Size

18 74.3° F, High Starting Voltage, Low Ending Voltage, Large Difference

19 74.1° F

20 73.6° F

21 75.2° F, New Day, Large Difference

22 74.1° F

23 74.0° F

24 73.2° F

25 70.8° F, Small Granules, Low Ending Voltage, Large Difference

26 75.3° F, New Day, Low Ending Voltage, Large Difference

27 74.2° F

28 73.0° F

29 71.1° F, Low Ending Voltage, Large Difference

30 69.8° F

Table 4 shows the observations for the soil trials. The temperature and where each

new day begins are given. The small or large granules were observations made of the soil

when it was on the solar panel based on the size of the granules. The distribution process

and the size of the granules could affect the outcome of the experiment. The observations

also show which trials had a relatively low or high Starting or Ending Voltages and large
 Butkowski - Evert 21

or small difference between the Starting and Ending Voltages when compared to the

averages of each category.

Table 5
Sand Trial Observations
Trial Observations

1 75.3° F, New Day, High Starting Voltage, High Ending Voltage

2 75.3° F, High Ending Voltage

3 74.8° F

4 74.2° F

5 75.1° F, New Day, Small Difference

6 74.9° F

7 74.7° F, Low Starting Voltage, Small Difference, Outlier

8 74.2° F

9 73.8° F

10 73.8° F

11 73.2° F

12 71.6° F, Low Starting Voltage, Small Difference

13 75.2° F, New Day, Low Starting Voltage

14 74.5° F, Low Starting Voltage

15 73.6° F, Low Starting Voltage

16 72.9° F

17 72.3° F

18 74.7° F, New Day

19 72.4° F

20 72.1° F

21 70.7° F
 Butkowski - Evert 22

Trial Observations

22 70.0° F, Low Ending Voltage, Large Difference

23 68.8° F

24 75.4° F, New Day

25 73.0° F

26 72.9° F

27 72.8° F

28 72.4° F

29 72.3° F

30 71.1° F

Table 5 shows the observations for the sand trials. The temperature and where

each new day begins are given. No small or large granules were observed. The

distribution process could affect the outcome of the experiment. The observations also

show which trials had a relatively low or high Starting or Ending Voltages and large or

small difference between the Starting and Ending Voltages when compared to the

averages of each category.

Table 6
Salt Trial Observations
Trial Observations

1 74.3° F, New Day

2 74.2° F

3 73.8° F

4 73.6° F

5 73.2° F
 Butkowski - Evert 23

Trial Observations

6 72.9° F

7 75.3° F, New Day, Salt Clump

8 75.1° F

9 74.7° F, Low Starting Voltage

10 73.8° F, Low Starting Voltage

11 72.2° F, Low Starting Voltage

12 71.9° F, Low Starting Voltage

13 75.1° F, New Day, Low Starting Voltage

14 74.9° F, Low Starting Voltage

15 74.7° F, Low Starting Voltage

16 73.9° F

17 73.4° F

18 72.8° F

19 72.3° F

20 71.5° F

21 70.8° F

22 75.1° F, New Day

23 74.9° F

24 74.6° F

25 73.7° F

26 72.8° F

27 74.8° F, New Day

28 72.3° F

29 71.5° F
 Butkowski - Evert 24

Trial Observations

30 71.0° F

Table 6 shows the observations for the salt trials. The temperature and where each

new day begins are given. No small or large granules were observed, however some of

the salt water pooled together before it dried creating a salt clump. The distribution or

drying process could affect the outcome of the experiment. The observations also show

which trials had a relatively low Starting Voltages when compared to the average Starting

Voltage.

Figure 4. Ending Stage

Figure 4 shows the ending stage of a trial for each type of debris that was tested.

The voltmeter read 7.17 V for the sand trial, 7.66 V for the salt trial, and 7.27 V for the

soil trial. Each trials results varied due to the distribution of the debris, and the type of

debris. Only the salt trials had saran wrap under them, which was accounted for in the

percent difference and percent difference in Table 3.

 Butkowski - Evert 25

Figure 5. Comparison of Dirt Trials

Figure 5 shows two ending stages of lawn soil. The picture on the right shows that

the granules of dirt are larger than those on the left. This may have caused a higher range

of differences compared to the sand and salt trials.

 Butkowski - Evert 26

Data Analysis and Interpretation

In order to test the reliability and validity of the data that was collected, it should

be seen that the experiment had control variables, was randomized, and can be replicated.

Each of these experimental aspects must be met to show the reliability of the collected

data. The aspect of control allows for a consistent variable to compare with the data that

is collected. Including randomization within the trials removes bias in performing the

trials, and thus the data becomes more reliable when conducting a statistical test on it.

The final aspect, replication, becomes essential to provide an order that can be followed

to duplicate the experiment and a controlled procedure which can be followed to allow

the experiment to be run smoothly and with accuracy. The control variable for this

experiment was the type of debris that was used, being either dirt, sand, or a salt solution.

The trials were randomized through use of the randomization function on a Ti-Nspire

calculator. Additionally, dirt and sand trials were able to be done while waiting for the

salt solution to become a film to be put on the solar panel. This may have furthered the

randomization of the trials.

 Butkowski - Evert 27

Figure 6. Box Plot Comparison of Debris Types

Figure 6, above, shows a boxplot of data for each of the three debris types that

were tested in this experiment. The trials ran with dirt as the debris type show a large

range in percent decreases of voltage output from the solar panel, ranging from 5.93% to

12.1%. There are no outliers in the sample of dirt trials, but the data does completely

overlap the data of the sand trials, having a wider range of percent decreases. The trials

that consisted of the salt solution as the debris type had a much lower decrease in voltage

output, ranging from a 1.78% decrease to a 2.40% decrease, but also did not include any

outliers. This data is completely separated from the data of the other two debris types, or,

in other words, the boxplot of data does not overlap with that of either of the other debris

types. The trials run with sand as the debris type have a range of 8.58% decrease to
 Butkowski - Evert 28

11.68%, a range that is completely within and overlapped by the range of dirt trials. The

spread of each box plot allows for comparison of each debris type’s data. It is clear that

the salt solution had very little effect on the reduction in voltage of the solar panel, and

should a two-sample​ t​ test need to be carried out, the salt solution would not need to be

included because of this. Therefore, the only variables that need to be compared are dirt

and sand. To determine which of these had the greater mean effect percent reduction on

the solar panel voltage, a two-sample ​t​ test comparing the means of each population was

conducted.

To complete a two-sample​ t​ test, three conditions must be met. The first of which

states that each of the two sample means must be a simple random sample. This

assumption is met by the randomization processes used in determining when to do each

trial, and which trials would be conducted. The second of these is that each of the

samples follow a normal probability distribution. Both the dirt sample population and

sand sample population have an equal number of data points and fit a normal probability

bell-shaped curve, this assumption is met. The third and final assumption is that each of

the sample populations have the same standard deviation. This is not true, however the

test can still be carried out as the Central Limit Theorem states that this assumption can

be met so long as the sample populations are of 30 or more points. Each population being

tested had 30 points. The null hypothesis for this test, H​o​, states that both the mean

percent reduction for sand and dirt are equal, μ​dirt​ = ​ ​μ​sand​. The alternative hypothesis, H​a​,

is that the mean percent reduction for sand is higher than that of dirt, μ​dirt​ < ​ ​μ​sand​. A

sample calculation can be found in Appendix A.

 Butkowski - Evert 29

Figure 7. Bell Curve of ​t​-test Between Dirt and Sand

Figure 7 shows the bell-curve of the data used for the ​t​-test. The p-value matches

that of the ​t​ test. Since the data fits the bell curve, it can be said that his assumption is met

and the ​t​ test can be conducted.

Table 7
Two-Sample ​t​ Test Results

Table 7, above, shows the results of the two-sample ​t​ test. As can be seen, the

p-value is smaller than the alpha level value of 0.05, meaning that H​o is
​ rejected. There is
 Butkowski - Evert 30

evidence that the true population mean of the sand population is greater than the true

population mean of the dirt population. If H​o were

​ true, these results would occur nearly

0% of the time (0.011%).

The results of the two-sample​ ​t​ test show that the means of the sand and dirt data

sets are not equal, and that the mean of the sand data set is higher than that of the dirt.

Thus, it can be concluded that the sand had the highest effect on the power reduction of

the solar panel, with the greatest mean power reduction percentage, 10.32%, to match.

The salt solution was shown to have little effect on the power reduction, and did not

overlap with the data sets of either dirt or sand, and thus did not need to be tested in order

to be concluded that it had the least effect. This means that the original hypothesis, that

sand has the greatest effect on the solar panel power reduction, and the salt solution has

the least, can be accepted.

 Butkowski - Evert 31

Conclusion

The purpose and design of this experiment was to determine which type of debris;

soil, sand, or salt, had the greatest effect on the voltage output of a solar panel. The dirt

had a range of 5.93% power reduction to 12.1% power reduction, with the mean being at

8.93% power reduction, the second largest mean of the three debris types. The sand had a

range of 8.58% to 11.68% power reduction, along with the highest mean power reduction

percentage at 10.32%. The salt solution had the smallest range of power reduction, 1.78%

to 2.4%, and the lowest mean power reduction at 2.03%. Due to the salt solution having

such a low mean, and having no overlap with the other two data sets, it was not used in

the two-sample ​t​ test and was concluded to have the least effect on the power reduction of

the solar panel. Based on the statistical two-sample ​t​ test that was used, it was found that

the sand had the greatest effect on power reduction and the salt solution had the least

effect on the power reduction of the solar panel. This was determined by the p-value of

the ​t​-test being less than the alpha level value of 0.05. This means that the null hypothesis

(H​o​: μ​dirt​ = ​ ​μ​sand​), stating that the means of the dirt and sand data populations are equal, is

rejected, and that the alternative hypothesis (H​a​: μ​dirt​ < ​ ​μ​sand​), stating that the true

population mean for the sand data is greater than the true population mean of the dirt

data, fails to be rejected. The original hypothesis, that sand would have the greatest effect

and the salt solution would have the least effect, is accepted.

Given the data collected and the statistical tests that were run, it can be concluded

that the sand had the greatest effect on the power reduction of the solar panels, while dirt

had the second greatest effect, and salt having the least effect. While the data shows a
 Butkowski - Evert 32

complete overlap of the sand data by that of the dirt (Figure 6), the mean of the sand data

(10.32) was proven by the statistical test to be higher than that of the data collected from

dirt trials (8.75), and thus the sand is said to have a greater effect than the dirt. The salt

solution did not overlap data from either of the other two sets (dirt and sand), and thus

was easily shown to have the weakest effect on the power output of the solar panel. These

results can be explained scientifically based on the properties of each debris type used.

The salt solution is unable to do any more than reflect the photons of light, while the dirt

can absorb and re-emit the light. However, the sand is able to do all three; reflect, absorb,

and re-emit, the photons of light, making it able to keep the most light from being used as

power by the solar panel. Based on this experiment, it would be a better idea to install a

solar panel in an area in which sand is not a common type of debris. Examples of this

include suburbs and communities that are not close to shorelines or areas covered in sand,

such as deserts. Even so, one should expect some voltage reduction regardless of where

the solar panel is installed, due to the numerous aerosols in the air. Debris may pile on,

and begin to reduce the solar panel’s usefulness if not cleaned correctly.

The results could be attributed to the types of debris that were placed on the solar

panel. Soil absorbs more photons of light than either of the other two types of debris,

allowing less of the light to get through to the solar panel, and thus it would make sense

that the soil would have a greater percent reduction in the voltage output in the solar

panel. However, this was not the case as this experiment concluded, because while the

soil absorbs the sunlight, the sand and salt reflect light back into the atmosphere as

theorized by the paper, “​Aerosols: Tiny Particles, Big Impact, by Adam Voiland”​.
 Butkowski - Evert 33

These results agree with current work in the field. The voltage output decreased

when debris was added to it. This agrees with the work, “Solar Cells Performance

Reduction under the Effect of Dust in Jazan Region” by Rachid Karmouch and ​Effects of

Dust on the Performance of PV Panels by Shaharin A Sulaiman​. In Karmouch’s

experiment, a reduction of 10.4% in the voltage output of the solar panel was found when

the solar panel was tilted 30° and a reduction of 9.7% when the solar panel was tilted 55°.

While the experiments had different goals, and this experiment did not have a tilted solar

panel, the result of a reduction in the amount of voltage output is similar. In ​Sulaiman’s

experiment the voltage output of a photovoltaic solar panel was, on average, ​18% when

artificial dust was placed on a plastic sheet on the solar panel. This happens because

when aerosols such as sand, salt, soil, or dust get in between photons of light and the

solar panel, the light is reflected and cannot reach the solar panel, therefore reducing the

voltage output.

This experiment is feasible because other research shows that keeping the solar

panel in a controlled environment and keeping the temperature similar were important to

reducing error in an experiment. However, there was some error in the experiment due to

the saran wrap, temperature fluctuation, size of the granules of debris, and the distribution

method. The Saran Wrap created a different ending voltage compared to if the salt alone

had been applied. Thus a calculation had to be made to account for that error. This was

the Adjusted Voltage and a sample calculation can be found in Appendix A. While the

temperature did not increase over the course of a day as it did in Min Cui’s experiment,

Thermal Test and Analysis of Concentrator Solar Cells, it did decrease. This was due to
 Butkowski - Evert 34

the storage method. The locker that the solar panel was stored it had a higher room

temperature than the basement the experiment was conducted in. All of these errors

should have had a minimal effect on the outcome of the experiment due to the number of

trials done. The size and distribution of the debris would have had a greater effect on the

outcome of the experiment. There was no uniform distribution over the course of the

experiment. Researchers moved debris around according to how they saw fit to cover the

entire solar panel and the experimenter bias could have affected the trials.The size of the

debris mattered because if there were larger granules there would be less to spread out to

cover the entire solar panel.

To further knowledge in the interaction between debris and solar panels, other

types of debris could be tested at higher amounts, or an interaction between two or more

types of debris could be done. This would be more realistic because the chances of only a

single type of debris being present on a solar panel, as it was in this experiment, is

unlikely. A further advancement to this research is seeing if different color solar panels

will produce more or less voltage. Depending on the color, light could be absorbed or

reflected more. This would enhance knowledge about where solar panels should be

positioned and what they should be made up of. Finally, one might also want to test the

temperature of the solar panel as well, both with and without debris, as this could further

the decision on where to place the solar panel, as well as how effective the solar panel is

under different weather and temperature circumstances.

 Butkowski - Evert 35

Appendix A: Sample Calculations

​D=S​v-E​ ​v​ D=​7.90-7.10=0.80

D=Sv​ ​-Av​ ​ ​ ​D=​7.90-7.72=0.18
Figure 8. Sample Calculation of Difference

These are sample calculations of the Difference. Difference is represented by ​D,

Starting Voltage is represented by ​S​v,​ Ending Voltage by ​E​v,​ and Adjusted Voltage by ​A​v.​

The calculation on the top is last trial of Table 2 and is representative of the sand and soil

trials. The Difference for these trials is the Starting Voltage subtracted by the Ending

Voltage. The calculation on the bottom is first trial of Table 3 and is representative of the

salt trials. The Difference for these trials is the Starting Voltage subtracted by the

Adjusted Voltage.

​ Difference=(( S​v​ - E​v​ ) / S​v​ )*100 ​% Difference=(( 7.99 - 7.19) / 7.99)*100= 10.01%
%
Figure 9. Sample Calculation of % Difference

Figure 9 shows the equation used to determine the percent difference in voltage

output as well as a sample calculation. The percent difference was determined by

subtracting the ending voltage (​E​v​) from the starting voltage (​S​v​) and dividing the result

by the starting voltage, then multiplying by 100.

​ ​v=E
A ​ ​v+
​ ​0.05 ​ A​v=
​ ​7.67​+​0.05=7.72
Figure 10. Sample Calculation of Adjusted Voltage

This is a sample calculation of the Adjusted Voltage in the first salt trial in Table

3. Adjusted Voltage is represented by ​A​v ,​ and Ending Voltage is represented by ​E​v​ . The

Adjusted Voltage was calculated by adding 0.05 to the Ending Voltage.

 Butkowski - Evert 36

Figure 11. Sample Calculation of Two-Sample ​t ​test

Figure 11, shown above, gives the equation for determining the ​t​ value of a two-

sample ​t​ test and a sample calculation. The ​t​ value, represented as ​t​, is equal to the mean

of the first population, x1 , minus the mean of the second population, x2 , divided by the

square root of the first population’s standard deviation squared (s1 2 ) over the size of the

population ( n1 ), plus the standard deviation of the second population squared ( s2 2 ) over

the size of the second population ( n2 ).

 Butkowski - Evert 37

Appendix B: Conversation With Wesley Anderson

Hello, Mr. Anderson, my name is Jocelyn and my partner Matt and I are working

on a senior research project for physics. Knowing that you majored in physics at Hope

College, we were wondering if you would be able to help us solve some problems that we

have encountered while creating a procedure for our experiment.

Sure, could you explain the experiment to me?

In this experiment we are comparing the effects different types of debris such as

sand, sea salt, and lawn soil, have on the voltage output of photovoltaic solar panels. To

do this we are placing 5 mL of each type of debris on a solar panel, one at a time and

recording the difference to do a two-sample ​t​-test to compare the means of each type of

data later. However, we have stumbled upon a problem. We need to create a film of salt

on the solar panel, and to do so we are dissolving sea salt in water and using a hair dryer

to evaporate the water, leaving only a film of sea salt behind. The problem surfaces when

we are trying to evaporate the water. It takes to long to do and the solar panel becomes

incredibly hot, which will reduce its efficacy. We were wondering if you could help us

come up with a way to get a film of salt water on the solar panel.

Are you using sea salt or table salt for this experiment?
 Butkowski - Evert 38

We are using sea salt because it would replicate the conditions of a marine biome

better than that of table salt.

There is no difference between table salt and sea salt. However, the grains in sea

salt are larger than those in table salt, so it would be easier to dissolve the table salt in hot

water. To fix the problem with evaporation, I would suggest creating the salt film on a

piece of glass or something that allows light to reach the solar panel and evaporating the

water through the use of a microwave or oven. Anything else?

That is all the questions we have for right now. We were wondering if you would

be willing to answers more questions for us as they arise over the course of our

experiment?

Of course, feel free to call anytime.

Thank you and have a wonderful evening!

You too, bye.

Bye.
 Butkowski - Evert 39

Works Cited

Anderson, Wesley. Phone Conversation. 1 November 2017.

“Cleaning Your Solar Panels.” ​Evergreen Solar​, National Council for Solar Growth,

2017. evergreensolar.com/how/cleaning/.

Crabtree, George W., and Nathan S. Lewis. “Solar Energy Conversion.” ​Caltech.edu​,

Physics Today, Mar. 2007, authors.library.caltech.edu/7721/1/CRApt07.pdf.

Cui, Min, et al. “Thermal Test and Analysis of Concentrator Solar

Cells.”​Www.spiedigitallibrary.org​, SPIEDigitalLibrary, 4 Jan. 2008,

file:///C:/Users/Warren/Downloads/684117.pdf.

Karmouch, Rachid. “Solar Cells Performance Reduction under the Effect of Dust in

Jazan Region.”​OMICS International​, OMICS International, 26 Mar. 2017,

www.omicsonline.org/open-access/solar-cells-performance-reduction-under-the-e

ffect-of-dust-in-jazan-region-2090-4541-1000228.php?aid=86803.

Dhar, Michael. “How Do Solar Panels Work?” ​LiveScience​, LiveScience, 16 Dec. 2013,

www.livescience.com/41995-how-do-solar-panels-work.htm​l​.

Pickerel, Kelly. “Fighting Dirty: Manual Washing vs. Automatic Cleaning of Solar

Modules.”​Solar Power World​, 23 Feb. 2015,

www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2015/02/fighting-dirty-manual-washing-vs-aut

omatic-cleaning-of-solar-modules/.

“Solar Panels Just Broke Another Record in the U.S.” ​Fortune​,

fortune.com/2015/09/09/solar-panel-record-america/.
 Butkowski - Evert 40

http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/solar-panel-record-america/

“Solar Panel Maintenance.” ​The Solar Company​,

www.thesolarco.com/solar-energy/solar-panels/solar-panel-maintenance/.

Sulaiman, Shaharin A., et al. “Effects of Dust on the Performance of PV Panels.”

Waset.org​, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 10 Nov.

2011,

waset.org/publications/10305/effects-of-dust-on-the-performance-of-pv-panels.

Voiland, Adam. “Aerosols: Tiny Particles, Big Impact.” ​Nasa.gov​, Earth Observatory, 2

Nov. 2010, earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/.