A cleaning strategy built on your soiling data

Solar cleaning schedule optimisation starts with one question: when is the energy you're losing worth more than the next clean? We design the whole strategy around that answer: method, interval, water, equipment, crew and contract.

Top-down drone view of a cleaning crew with a hose working along one cleaned, dark module row
−17%
soiling cost when data picks the cleaning day, in a modelled Californian exampleIEA PVPS (2022)
−31%
soiling cost with a data-driven 14-day cleaning cycle at a utility plant in SenegalDiouf et al. (2022)
6 of 11
South African IPPs surveyed cleaned only one to three times a year; 36% never washedNaicker (2018), via SAPVIA

Why fixed schedules waste money

In a 2018 survey of 11 South African solar IPPs, 6 cleaned one to three times a year, 36% never washed and waited for rain, and 9% washed six or more times a year. Of the plants that cleaned, 86% used tractor rigs (Naicker 2018). A fixed calendar can’t respond to a dust storm, a dry winter or a wet summer.

Timing is worth real money. In a modelled example for one Californian site, choosing the best cleaning day instead of cleaning at a fixed threshold cut soiling costs by 17% (IEA PVPS 2022). A data-driven 14-day cycle at a utility plant in Senegal cut them by 31% (Diouf et al. 2022). Returns also diminish: in a US example, the annual soiling loss fell from 1.91% to 1.52% with one clean, 1.32% with two and 1.20% with three (NREL 2018).

Annual soiling loss by cleans a year
  1. No clean1.91%
  2. One clean1.52%
  3. Two cleans1.32%
  4. Three cleans1.20%

Each extra clean saves less than the one before. US example, NREL 2018.

What published case studies show. Chemitek’s case studies with O&M teams show these decisions being made on working plants. See the Vietnam, Chile tracker and Malaysia cases.

Each plan started from that plant’s soiling, equipment and water, and ours do too. For plants where a contaminant has bonded to the glass, the strategy starts with a restoration phase: see Restore → Protect → Maintain.

What the strategy covers

Element What we decide
Method Dry or wet; manual brush, rotary brush, water-fed pole, tractor or robot
Interval or trigger Fixed interval, seasonal calendar or a trigger from soiling data
Water Source, quality against the module maker’s limits, treatment and volume per clean
Chemistry Whether a cleaner, coating or removal agent pays back, and at what dilution
Equipment Brushes, dosing, poles, tractors or robots matched to soiling and layout
Crew procedure A method statement: sequence, timing, pressure, PPE and checks
Contract KPIs What the O&M contract measures and pays for

Dry or wet, and which water

Dry or wet? Dry cleaning saves water and can be enough for loose dust: see soiling losses in South Africa. But dry brushing won’t break cemented dust (IEA PVPS 2022), scale or lichen, and some module makers’ letters of conformity allow wet cleaning only (LONGi’s does). In water-scarce areas, dry cleaning between wet washes can cut water further. Equipment selection compares the tools.

Water. Wet cleaning uses about 1 L/m² per clean in US literature, and a South African dissertation cites about 3 L/m² (NREL 2018; Naicker 2018). Chemitek reports up to 50% less water with Solar Wash Protect or Antistatic Solar Armor 2.0. With tractors and robots the coating’s main effect is faster cleaning: see the Vietnam case. Hard water needs treating first: see water testing.

Intervals and triggers

  • Start from the module maker’s default. LONGi asks for cleaning at least every 20–30 days in dry areas and every 40–50 days in rainy areas (LONGi O&M Manual V2.0).
  • Then do the economics. The right interval depends on your tariff, soiling rate and what a clean costs, and it changes with the season. The calculator works it out for your plant.
  • Then trigger from data. A soiling station shows when the loss has earned the next clean. A rule of thumb reported in South Africa is a constant gap of more than 50 W/m² between cleaned and uncleaned reference cells (Naicker 2018). A cost-based trigger is better.
  • Count the rain. Your site’s rainfall pattern goes into the calendar. Soiling losses in South Africa covers how rain affected one Northern Cape plant.

Crew procedure and contract KPIs

A strategy only works if crews can follow it and the contract rewards it. We write a method statement for each task, covering sequence, dilution, pressure, brush type, timing, PPE, safety data sheets and sign-off. Then we write KPIs both parties can check: If an O&M contractor runs your cleaning, we work alongside them.

  • soiling ratio after cleaning, from a soiling station;
  • energy recovered per clean;
  • water used per m²;
  • area cleaned per crew-hour;
  • incidents: breakages, scratches or cleaning outside the module maker’s conditions.

Chemitek products for this

The full range

Sources

Cleaning & O&M strategy

Common questions

Still have a question?

Ask one of our engineers. Tell us about your plant and we’ll answer it properly.

Send your question

How often should a utility-scale solar plant be cleaned?

It depends on the soiling rate, yield, tariff and cost per clean. Measured soiling data sets the actual interval.

Is dry cleaning good enough?

For loose dust in dry climates, it can be. Soiling losses in South Africa covers the Northern Cape evidence. It won't remove cemented dust, scale or lichen, and some module makers' conditions require wet cleaning.

Can we rely on rain to clean the plant?

Sometimes, in a pattern that fits your site. Soiling losses in South Africa covers the Northern Cape rain evidence. In a long dry season rain can't help.

What should the cleaning clause in our O&M contract say?

It should define the method, the water standard, the module maker's cleaning conditions and how cleaning quality is measured, not just the number of washes. We write KPIs, such as soiling ratio after cleaning and water used per m², that both the owner and the contractor can check.

Will an anti-soiling coating let us clean less often?

It can, but it has to be proven on your site. Long-term field averages show 20–50% less soiling, not the 80% or more of short tests, and a hydrophobic coating increased soiling in a Northern Cape trial (Ilse et al. 2019; du Plessis 2017). We test coatings in a pilot before they go into a strategy.

Ready to maximise your asset performance?

Talk to an engineer about a free pilot, a soiling problem or a Chemitek order.