Next Article in Journal
Size Effects on Process-Induced Porosity in Ti6Al4V Thin Struts Additively Manufactured by Laser Powder-Bed Fusion
Previous Article in Journal
Influence and Potential of Additive Manufactured Reference Geometries for Ultrasonic Testing
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Enabling Sustainable Solar Energy Systems Through Electromagnetic Monitoring of Key Components Across Production, Usage, and Recycling: A Review

by
Mahdieh Samimi
1,* and
Hassan Hosseinlaghab
2
1
Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
2
Independent Researcher, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2025, 9(7), 225; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9070225
Submission received: 30 April 2025 / Revised: 23 June 2025 / Accepted: 26 June 2025 / Published: 1 July 2025

Abstract

The transition to renewable energy requires sustainable solar manufacturing through optimized Production–Usage–Recycling (PUR) cycles, where electromagnetic (EM) sensing offers non-destructive monitoring solutions. This review categorizes EM methods into low- (<100 MHz) and medium-frequency (100 MHz–10 GHz) techniques for material evaluation, defect detection, and performance optimization throughout the solar lifecycle. During production, eddy current testing and impedance spectroscopy improve quality control while reducing waste. In operational phases, RFID-based monitoring enables continuous performance tracking and early fault detection of photovoltaic panels. For recycling, electrodynamic separation efficiently recovers materials, supporting circular economies. The analysis demonstrates the unique advantages of EM techniques in non-contact evaluation, real-time monitoring, and material-specific characterization, addressing critical sustainability challenges in photovoltaic systems. By examining capabilities and limitations, we highlight EM monitoring’s transformative potential for sustainable manufacturing, from production quality assurance to end-of-life material recovery. The frequency-based framework provides manufacturers with physics-guided solutions that enhance efficiency while minimizing environmental impact. This comprehensive assessment establishes EM technologies as vital tools for advancing solar energy systems, offering practical monitoring approaches that align with global sustainability goals. The review identifies current challenges and future opportunities in implementing these techniques, emphasizing their role in facilitating the renewable energy transition through improved resource efficiency and lifecycle management.

1. Introduction

The global shift towards sustainable manufacturing is driven by the urgent need to reduce environmental impact, conserve resources, and meet the growing demand for renewable energy [1]. Among renewable energy sources, solar energy stands out as a key contributor to achieving global sustainability goals [2]. Modern solar energy systems primarily employ two conversion technologies: photovoltaic (PV) systems, which directly convert sunlight to electricity via semiconductor junctions (representing approximately 92% of installed capacity), and concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) systems that utilize thermal energy conversion (approximately 8% of capacity) [3]. This review focuses on PV systems due to their dominant market position. The photovoltaic industry is undergoing unprecedented growth, driven by global decarbonization commitments. Over 130 nations have established carbon neutrality targets, with the EU’s REPower EU strategy mandating 600 GW of installed PV capacity by 2030 [4]. Concurrently, China’s 14th Five-Year Plan targets a 20% non-fossil energy share by 2025, predominantly through solar expansion [5]. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects photovoltaic generation needs to reach 14,000 TWh annually by 2050 to achieve net-zero emissions, representing 35–40% of global electricity supply [6]. This exponential growth of PV deployment creates urgent needs for sustainable manufacturing paradigms.
Solar panels, as the primary equipment for harnessing solar energy, play a critical role in this transition [3]. However, the manufacturing, usage, and end-of-life management of solar energy components must align with sustainable practices to minimize waste, energy consumption, and environmental degradation [7,8,9]. Recent work by Guo et al. [7] and the IEA-PVPS Task 13 [10] underscore the importance of circular economy principles in PV lifecycle management. This necessitates a holistic approach that integrates the Production–Usage–Recycling (PUR) cycle into the lifecycle of solar energy components.
Sustainable manufacturing emphasizes the efficient use of resources, reduction of waste, and minimization of environmental impact throughout a product’s lifecycle [11]. For solar energy components, this means optimizing production processes, ensuring long-term performance during usage, and enabling efficient recycling at the end of their service life. The PUR cycle provides a framework for achieving these goals by addressing each phase of the lifecycle: production (material processing and assembly), usage (performance monitoring and maintenance), and recycling (material recovery and reuse).
A critical enabler of sustainable manufacturing in the PUR cycle is metrology and in-process monitoring. These tools allow for real-time quality control, fault detection [12], and performance optimization, ensuring that solar energy components meet high standards of efficiency and durability. Research by Hwang et al. [13] and Matacena et al. [14,15] has revealed how electromagnetic (EM) sensing methods can improve these processes. Figure 1 demonstrates a PUR cycle with and without metrology and quality control, highlighting the significant improvements in sustainability and efficiency when these tools are integrated.
Photovoltaic monitoring utilizes various approaches, each with distinct operating principles and limitations. Mechanical methods like ultrasonic testing provide localized stress analysis but require surface contact and suffer from signal attenuation in layered materials [16]. Electrical techniques, including IV curve tracing, offer performance data but necessitate system interruption. Thermal imaging detects hotspots yet lacks subsurface resolution [16]. Optical methods such as electroluminescence imaging reveal microcracks but require dark conditions and electrical biasing [17,18]. Electromagnetic (EM) sensing, pioneered by research groups such as Zoughi’s team at Colorado State University [19,20] and Sophian et al. [21], has gained prominence by overcoming these constraints through its unique combination of non-contact operation, volumetric inspection capability, and material-specific sensitivity. EM monitoring addresses three critical challenges in scaling PV production: (1) minimizing silicon waste during manufacturing (currently 35–40% of ingot mass [4]), (2) preventing field failures that account for 0.5–2% annual energy losses [10], and (3) overcoming the less than 20% recycling rates for end-of-life modules [4,22,23]. Among the various frequency monitoring techniques, low- and medium-frequency electromagnetic (EM) sensing methods have emerged as particularly effective due to their non-destructive, real-time, and cost-effective capabilities [24], as demonstrated by Deng et al.’s comprehensive research on EM imaging methods for nondestructive evaluation [24]. Operating in frequency ranges below 10 GHz, these methods can detect defects, monitor material properties, and assess performance without disrupting manufacturing or operational processes. Their ability to provide detailed insights into material and structural integrity makes them indispensable for sustainable manufacturing.
The importance of analyzing the capability of low- and medium-frequency EM sensing methods lies in their potential to enhance sustainability across the PUR cycle. For instance, during production, some techniques enabling precise defect detection and material characterization, reducing waste, and improving product quality are significantly beneficial [13,14,15]. During usage, methods that facilitate continuous performance monitoring, ensuring optimal energy output and early fault detection, can play valuable roles [25,26]. In the recycling phase, EM methods enabling efficient material recovery, minimizing waste, and promoting a circular economy are considerably valuable [27].
This review aims to critically analyze the role of low- and medium-frequency EM sensing methods in the sustainable manufacturing of solar energy components within the PUR cycle. It evaluates which EM techniques are most effective for each phase of the lifecycle, identifies their limitations, and explores opportunities for improving fault detection and process efficiency. By focusing on cost-effective and accessible methods, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of their capabilities and challenges, ultimately contributing to more sustainable manufacturing practices in the solar energy industry.
The following sections will investigate the principles and applications of low- and medium-frequency EM sensing methods, categorize them by frequency range, and assess their suitability for production, usage, and recycling processes. Through this analysis, the review highlights the transformative potential of these techniques in achieving sustainability across the lifecycle of solar energy components.

2. Electromagnetic Monitoring Methods in Production–Usage–Recycling Cycle of Key Components of Solar Energy

Electromagnetic (EM) monitoring techniques are non-destructive metrology tools that can be beneficial for ensuring the quality, performance, and sustainability of solar energy components throughout their lifecycle [28]. Given the wide range of frequencies for EM sensing, this review categorizes these techniques into low-frequency (<100 MHz) and medium-frequency (100 MHz–10 GHz) methods based on their operational frequency ranges. The list of methods according to their frequency of performance is shown in Figure 2. Each category offers unique capabilities and applications in the production, usage, and recycling phases of solar energy components.
In this section, the focus is on the methods applied in each step of the PUR cycle, though many of these techniques can be used across multiple phases due to their versatility. For example, eddy current testing (ECT), discussed below, can be applied in all three phases of the PUR cycle. Therefore, the LF and MF methods for the three steps of the PUR cycle are discussed below.

2.1. Low-Frequency Electromagnetic (LF-EM) Methods (<100 MHz)

Low-frequency electromagnetic (LF-EM) methods, referred to as LF-EM here, are primarily used for defect detection, material characterization, and quality control in solar energy components. These methods are particularly effective in identifying structural and electrical defects in photovoltaic (PV) materials and modules. The application of LF-EM methods in photovoltaic inspection is grounded in three core principles derived from Maxwell’s equations. First is electromagnetic induction (induced E-field), as described by Faraday’s Law in Equation (1). This relationship yields eddy currents, where Jₑ signifies the current density (A/m2) and σ corresponds to the material conductivity (S/m) in PV components [29].
× E = B t   ;   J = σ E   ;   σ = ω ϵ ϵ 0
where E is electric field intensity (V/m), and B represents magnetic flux density (T).
Secondly, the skin depth effect, as per Equation (2), determines the probing depth. Lower frequencies (<1 MHz) allow for deeper penetration into PV materials. For instance, achieving a depth of approximately 0.5–5 mm in silicon wafers at 10–100 kHz [13].
δ = 2 ω μ σ   ;   μ = μ 0 μ r
where δ equals the standard penetration depth (m), ω is defined as the angular frequency (rad/s) = 2πf, μ denotes the magnetic permeability (H/m), and μ 0 and μ r are the magnetic permeability of air and the material, respectively.
Third, the impedance/resonance response characteristics vary between techniques: conventional eddy current testing (ECT) and pulsed eddy current (PEC) methods monitor changes in coil impedance (Z = R + jωL, where Z represents complex impedance (Ω), R is the resistive component (Ω), and L corresponds to inductance (H)), while Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) sensors track shifts in resonant frequency (Δfᵣ), as mentioned in Equation (3) [30].
f r = 1 2 π   L C ;   Δ f r / f r   0.5 ( Δ L / L )
where fᵣ signifies resonant frequency (Hz), ΔL is inductance change (H), and C is capacitance (F) caused by material degradation [30].

2.1.1. In Production

In production environments, ECT employs time-harmonic excitation (10 kHz–1 MHz) to induce eddy currents [31], with defects causing measurable impedance perturbations, as shown in Equation (4):
Δ Z ( J / σ ) · E   d V
where ΔZ denotes the impedance change (Ω) and V is the sample volume (m3) that enables the detection of microcracks in silicon cells through phase analysis [32,33], consistent with Wang et al.’s demonstration of eddy current imaging techniques for crack detection in solar cells [33]. This technique also provides precise mapping of TCO sheet resistance uniformity, critical for quality control in thin-film PV manufacturing [13]. Figure 3 demonstrates some examples of ECT applied for fault detection and corrosion on the PV panels.
In contrast to ECT, the pulsed eddy current (PEC) method utilizes transient electromagnetic pulses (1–10 μs duration) to generate decaying eddy currents [37]. The characteristic decay time constant in seconds (τ = μ0μᵣσd22, where d is material thickness in meters) serves as a thickness-dependent metric for quantifying aluminum backsheet thinning due to corrosion and identifying doping inhomogeneities in crystalline silicon [35,38].
Another method, impedance spectroscopy (IS), is a more electrical technique widely used to measure the impedance of a material over a range of frequencies. It is commonly used to analyze charge transport, recombination, and interfacial properties in organic solar cells (OSCs) and perovskite solar cells (PSCs). IS provides critical parameters such as carrier mobility, built-in potential, and doping density, which aid in material optimization and efficiency improvements [39,40]. Impedance spectroscopy (IS) for solar cells involves applying a small sinusoidal voltage, which can be represented as V t = V D C + V 0   s i n ( ω t ) , and measuring the resulting current response, I ( t ) = I D C + I 0   s i n ( ω t + φ ) , where ω is the angular frequency, and φ is the phase angle. The impedance, Z(ω), is defined as the ratio of the voltage to the current, considering both magnitude and phase: Z = V 0 I 0   e x p ( i φ ) = Z 0   c o s ( φ ) i   Z 0   s i n ( φ ) . The impedance can be expressed as Z = Z+ i Z″, where Z′ is the resistance (real part) and Z″ is the reactance (imaginary part). When the system behaves purely capacitively, it provides insights into dynamic processes within the solar cell [41].

2.1.2. In Usage

For operational PV systems, eddy current imaging (ECI) extends the eddy current principles through multi-frequency impedance mapping (Z(f) = ΣAᵢe^(−2zᵢ/δ(f)), where Aᵢ are amplitude coefficients and zᵢ denote layer depths (m)), enabling layer-specific defect characterization. This approach has proven particularly effective for monitoring crack propagation under thermal cycling conditions and detecting back-contact delamination in field-aged thin-film modules [42,43].
Another LF-EM method increasingly being adopted for real-time diagnostics of PV modules is Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) sensors, due to their ability to measure critical parameters such as voltage, current, and temperature. These sensors enable early fault detection, thereby reducing maintenance costs and improving system reliability [44,45]. Concurrently, passive RFID sensors (125 kHz–13.56 MHz) have emerged as a robust solution for real-time condition monitoring, where corrosion-induced inductance changes and temperature-dependent resistance variations in module frames and interconnects are tracked through resonant frequency shifts (Δfᵣ) obtained from Equation (3) and backscatter modulation [46,47].
Table 1 provides a summary of key performance metrics of the described LF methods for PV modules or solar panels.
These techniques collectively provide a comprehensive PV inspection toolkit, where ECT/PEC deliver superior resolution (<100 μm) for manufacturing QA, while RFID offers wireless monitoring capabilities. The fundamental frequency–depth–material property relationships allow for optimized inspection protocols throughout the PV system lifecycle, particularly in the production and usage phases.

2.1.3. In Recycling

Certain EM technologies are particularly effective in the recycling of PV panels, which are primarily made of non-ferrous materials. One example is electrodynamic eddy current separation (ECS), a method used to extract non-ferrous metals such as aluminum, copper, and brass from retired PV panels. This technique induces eddy currents in conductive materials, creating a repulsive force that aids in the efficient separation of metals from mixed waste streams [48].
The operational benefits of ECS directly result in economic advantages for PV recycling. As a non-contact method based on fundamental conductivity differences, ECS avoids the costs of consumable and preprocessing requirements associated with traditional separation technologies. Industrial applications demonstrate three main economic benefits [49,50]:
  • Elimination of consumables and chemical inputs;
  • Continuous processing capability without the need for pretreatment;
  • Reduced maintenance requirements due to non-contact operation.
Therefore, ECS is a cost-effective option for recovering non-ferrous metals from PV waste streams.
Another LF-EM method commonly used for material tracking is RFID. RFID tags embedded in PV panels during manufacturing enable the efficient sorting and processing of materials at the recycling stage. As demonstrated by Kantareddy et al. and Węglarski et al., RFID tags embedded in PV panels [44,45,51] during manufacturing enable efficient sorting and processing of materials at the recycling stage. These tags store information about the panel’s composition, manufacturing date, and material constituents, ensuring accurate identification and recovery of valuable elements like silicon and silver [44,45,51].

2.2. Medium-Frequency Electromagnetic (MF-EM) Methods (100 MHz–10 GHz)

Medium-frequency (MF) electromagnetic techniques, referred to as MF-EM here, provide essential capabilities for characterizing photovoltaic systems throughout the production, operation, and recycling phases. These methods utilize fundamental wave–material interactions governed by Maxwell’s equations, offering superior resolution (on the scale of micrometers) and material specificity compared to low-frequency approaches [52]. Based on the research conducted, three core physical phenomena underpin their operation in PV systems.
Firstly, the dielectric response of PV materials is characterized by the complex permittivity ϵ* = ϵ′ − ″, where ϵ′ represents the real component describing polarization effects (unitless) and ϵ″ denotes the imaginary component accounting for dielectric losses. This relationship determines the power dissipation density obtained from Equation (5).
P = 2 π f ϵ 0 ϵ | E | 2
where P is the absorbed power density (W/m3), f is the operating frequency (Hz), ϵ0 is the permittivity of free space (8.854 × 10−12 F/m), and E is the electric field intensity (V/m) [53]. Secondly, the penetration depth δp, which governs inspection resolution, is as follows:
δ p = c 2 π f ϵ ( 0.5 ( ( 1 + t a n 2 δ ) 1 )   ;   ( t a n δ = ϵ / ϵ )
where c is the speed of light (3 × 108 m/s) and tanδ = ϵ″/ϵ′ represents the loss tangent. Equation (6) illustrates the frequency-dependent tradeoff between resolution and penetration depth, with typical δp values ranging from 0.1 mm at 10 GHz to 5 mm at 100 MHz in silicon-based PV materials [54].
The third phenomenon, wave reflection at material interfaces, is quantified by the reflection coefficient as shown in Equation (7):
Γ = Z m a t e r i a l Z 0 Z m a t e r i a l + Z 0 ;   Z m a t e r i a l = ( μ 0 / ϵ )
where Z m a t e r i a l represents the material impedance in ohms, and Z0 = 377 Ω is the free-space impedance. This relationship allows for the non-contact characterization of subsurface features through reflectometry measurements [55].

2.2.1. In Production

Microwave imaging techniques are widely used for the non-destructive evaluation of silicon wafers and thin-film solar cells [19,38,56,57,58,59]. The principles and components for Microwave NDT testing are demonstrated in Figure 4. These methods offer reliable detection of defects and structural irregularities, making them suitable for quality control during production.
In production environments, Microwave NDT utilizes continuous-wave (1–10 GHz) or pulsed excitation to measure transmission coefficients (S21) in Equation (8), where α is the attenuation constant and d represents material thickness:
S 21   e α d ;       α = 2 π f ϵ / c
This approach enables the detection of 10–100 µm voids in silicon cells through permittivity contrast (Δϵ′ ≈ 2–3) and TCO conductivity variations (σ in Equation (1)) with an accuracy of ±5% [57,58].

2.2.2. In Usage

One example of MF non-contact process monitoring utilizes microwave reflectometry (MR), which has emerged as a powerful technique for the in situ monitoring of moisture ingress and delamination in operational PV modules. The method measures changes in the complex reflection coefficient, the frequency-dependent form of Equation (7), Γ(f) = [ZPV(f) − Z0]/[ZPV(f) + Z0], where ZPV(f) represents the frequency-dependent impedance of the PV module and Z0 = 50 Ω is the reference impedance [20,60]. Practical implementations utilize compact patch antennas integrated within junction boxes, achieving 0.5 mm spatial resolution through the precise measurement of both magnitude (Δ|Γ| > 0.1 for 1 mm2 corrosion spots) and phase shifts (>5° for crack detection) [61,62,63]. This aligns with findings by Zolfaghari et al. [35], who demonstrated similar sensitivity in defect detection using Microwave Phased Testing (MPT), where a 0.5 mm resolution reliably identified surface cracks in welded materials, with full detection certainty for defects exceeding 2.5 mm [64]. Field trials have demonstrated 92% accuracy in identifying backsheet degradation using 2.45 GHz ISM band operation, with the technique being particularly sensitive to moisture ingress due to the large permittivity contrast between water (ϵ′ ≈ 80) and ethylene–vinyl acetate (EVA) encapsulant (ϵ′ ≈ 2.9) [65].
Another method, dielectric spectroscopy (DS), provides complementary capabilities for monitoring encapsulant aging and potential-induced degradation through the broadband (100 MHz–3 GHz) measurement of complex permittivity variations. The technique builds on foundational work by Agroui et al. [66] on EVA encapsulant characterization. This method employs interdigital capacitors printed directly on module edges to track ϵ′ and ϵ″ evolution, where Δϵ′ > 0.5 indicates Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA), the primary encapsulant material in PV modules, and crosslinking loss, and ϵ″ increases at 1–2 GHz reveal Na+ migration associated with PID effects [66]. Implementation in a 1 MW power plant demonstrated 89% fault prediction accuracy by monitoring key parameters, including the degradation rate (′/dt > 0.05/year signaling failure) and moisture content (Δϵ″ > 0.3 at 1 GHz corresponding to 0.1% water content). The method’s 10 mW power requirement and 100 μm resolution make it particularly suitable for the long-term monitoring of utility-scale installations [67].
The other widely used method, Passive Microwave Radiometry (PMR), offers a completely non-invasive monitoring solution through the detection of thermal emissions in the 1–10 GHz range. The brightness temperature TB = ηTphys + (1 − η)Tamb, where η is emissivity (0.9 for Si, 0.3 for glass) and Tphys is the physical temperature, enables hotspot detection with 0.5 °C resolution at 4 GHz [68]. Field deployments [69,70,71,72] in desert environments achieved over 90% identifying hotspots, while also monitoring microcracks by observing changes in emissivity (Δη > 0.05). The passive nature of this technique (0 W transmission power) eliminates interference concerns while providing 10 cm spatial resolution in array configurations [69,70,71,72].
Implementation strategies vary according to system scale and criticality. Utility-scale installations benefit from combined PMR and DS systems, providing comprehensive thermal and material degradation monitoring. Rooftop applications typically employ MR for its cost-effectiveness and simple integration, while critical installations may utilize hybrid DS-MR systems for enhanced reliability [IEC 62941:2016] [73,74]. All methods operate exclusively in civilian frequency bands (ISM 2.45/5.8 GHz) and comply with international standards for PV monitoring (IEC 62793), ensuring both technical efficacy and regulatory compliance [FCC Part 15/ETSI EN 300 440] [75].
These microwave techniques have demonstrated significant advantages over conventional monitoring approaches, including reduction in inspection costs through automated unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-based MR systems and improvement in early fault detection rates compared to visual inspection methods [76]. The physical principles underlying these methods, particularly the frequency-dependent interactions with PV materials described by Equations (5)–(8), enable the targeted monitoring of specific degradation mechanisms while maintaining the non-destructive, non-invasive characteristics essential for operational PV systems.

2.2.3. In Recycling

Microwave-assisted delamination and pyrolysis have emerged as transformative technologies for recycling photovoltaic modules, taking advantage of the frequency-dependent dielectric properties of PV materials. The delamination process exploits the significant difference in dielectric loss between silicon nitride anti-reflection coatings (ϵ″ ≈ 0.1 at 2.45 GHz) and EVA encapsulant (ϵ″ ≈ 0.01). The absorbed power density follows Equation (5), enabling the selective heating of interfacial layers [38], allowing for industrial-scale 25 kW systems operating at 2.45 GHz to achieve complete layer separation in under 2 min through controlled heating to 300 °C. Thermal stresses (Δσ = EΔαΔT) are generated by the coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch (Δα ≈ 5 × 10−6 K−1) between glass and polymer components. This process preserves over 98% of silicon cells for reuse while reducing energy consumption by 40% compared to conventional thermal delamination [77,78,79].
Microwave-assisted pyrolysis extends this principle to material recovery through localized heating governed by Tlocal2/8π2κr2, where κ is the thermal conductivity of the PV waste matrix (0.2–0.5 W/m·K for typical module debris) [78]. Operating at 915 MHz with 50 kW power [80], these systems efficiently decompose polymer backsheets, with EVA films exhibiting near-complete weight loss (99.7%) at a peak exothermic temperature of 438 °C—significantly lower than conventional thermal methods [79]. This process maintains silicon wafer integrity while achieving more than 90% metal recovery rates (Jung et al., 2016) [81] and 95% glass purity (Komoto et al., 2018) [82], as demonstrated in recent industrial-scale trials [50,79,83]. The frequency selection is critical, with 915 MHz providing deeper penetration (δp ≈ 15 cm) into bulk material compared to 2.45 GHz systems while maintaining sufficient energy coupling to organic components.
By leveraging these cost-effective and accessible techniques, as summarized in Table 2, manufacturers can improve production processes, extend the lifespan of PV modules, and promote sustainable recycling practices, contributing to the global transition toward renewable energy.
Below, Table 3 provides a summary of the categorization and analysis of LF- and MF-EM methods and their capability for use in each phase of the PUR cycle. In addition, the table summarizes the key advantages of EM monitoring techniques across the Production–Usage–Recycling cycle, highlighting their role in reducing material waste, enhancing energy efficiency, and ensuring long-term reliability.
Microwave-assisted delamination offers inherent economic advantages due to its fundamental operating principles. The frequency-selective heating mechanism (Equation (5) allows for targeted energy deposition, especially at material interfaces, reducing thermal losses to non-target components. This selectivity results in energy savings, as only the dielectric loss components (such as EVA encapsulants and backsheets) absorb significant microwave energy, while silicon cells remain mostly transparent to the applied fields [86]. Industrial implementations have shown that the rapid, volumetric heating characteristic of microwave systems (completing delamination in less than 2 min) decreases processing time and ancillary energy requirements compared to traditional thermal methods. The preservation of intact silicon wafers (with over 98% recovery) and high-purity glass components further enhances economic viability by maintaining material value, a crucial aspect in recycling economics [50]. Frequency optimization (915 MHz vs. 2.45 GHz) provides additional cost benefits by improving penetration depth (δp ≈ 15 cm), allowing for the processing of intact modules without the need for energy-intensive size reduction [78,86]. These combined factors position microwave-assisted recycling as a technologically and economically compelling solution for end-of-life PV management.

3. Challenges, Future Trends, and Opportunities

3.1. Advantages of EM Techniques for Sustainable Manufacturing

Electromagnetic (EM) monitoring techniques have emerged as indispensable tools in the sustainable manufacturing of solar energy components, offering significant advantages in material efficiency, energy optimization, and product reliability. These techniques support the reduction of material waste by enabling early defect detection during production. For instance, RFID sensors enhance sustainability by continuously monitoring PV module performance, detecting faults such as shading and degradation early, which aids in proactive maintenance and reduces replacement waste [45]. Similarly, ECT provides non-invasive solder joint and interconnection quality assessments, detecting weak electrical connections before they cause performance degradation [13,84]. By integrating these EM techniques into manufacturing processes, industries can optimize resource utilization, minimize defective output, and contribute to sustainable production practices through early defect detection and waste reduction.
Figure 5 shows the different faults that can be detected by EM sensors in various parts of a solar cell.
EM techniques also enhance energy efficiency by optimizing manufacturing processes. For example, impedance spectroscopy (IS) enables the precise electrical characterization of solar cells, optimizing charge transport and minimizing recombination losses, and directly contributing to higher energy conversion efficiency [39,40]. Microwave NDT provides reliable detection of defects in dielectric materials, ensuring uniform film deposition and enhancing solar cell performance [87]. Additionally, Microwave Photonic Sensing (MPS) analyzes temperature variations across PV panels, enabling real-time performance optimization and reducing energy losses [88]. By integrating these cutting-edge techniques, PV manufacturing processes become more energy-efficient, reducing waste and enhancing sustainability in solar energy production.
Ensuring the long-term durability and reliability of solar energy components is another critical advantage of EM techniques. Eddy current imaging enables real-time defect detection in utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) plants, ensuring proactive maintenance and preventing performance degradation [13,40]. RFID-based monitoring automates fault diagnosis in PV modules, enhancing predictive maintenance and reducing long-term energy losses [45,51]. Multi-frequency ECT assesses solder joint and interconnection quality, preventing premature failures caused by mechanical stress or environmental degradation [13,84]. These techniques collectively enhance the solar module lifespan, reduce maintenance costs, and ensure reliable long-term performance in solar energy systems.

3.2. Challenges and Limitations

Despite their advantages, EM monitoring techniques face several challenges and limitations. One major limitation is the sensitivity and accuracy of EM sensors, which can be affected by environmental factors such as temperature fluctuations, electromagnetic interference, and material heterogeneity. For example, Du et al. determined that Eddy Current Thermography, while effective for detecting microcracks, requires precise calibration to differentiate between deep and surface-level defects [89]. Additionally, RFID sensors may struggle with low-mobility materials and background irradiance, necessitating advanced signal processing techniques to enhance reliability [45].
Another challenge is the integration of EM systems into high-speed production lines. Techniques such as Microwave NDT are hindered by slow scanning speeds, making real-time inspection challenging [38,51]. Overcoming these integration challenges is crucial for ensuring high-speed, cost-effective, and reliable defect detection in PV manufacturing processes.
While electromagnetic methods demonstrate clear technical advantages, their economic viability depends on scale. Large-scale implementations (>10,000 tonnes/year) achieve cost parity with conventional methods through equipment utilization rates, but smaller operations face capital cost barriers [50,79]. Recent innovations in modular EM systems show promise for reducing upfront investments by 40–50%, as demonstrated by Amir et al. [90]. The potential for cost-effective solutions is highlighted through their work on low-cost waste sorting techniques using eddy current separation processes [90]. In addition, suitable sensors, data acquisition hardware, and software can be prohibitively expensive, limiting widespread adoption [24]. Additionally, calibration and standardization issues complicate the implementation of EM monitoring across diverse manufacturing processes. Techniques such as impedance spectroscopy (IS) require precise parameter extraction and careful device modeling, demanding accurate calibration for reliable results [39,40].
Table 4 provides a comprehensive overview of the benefits, limitations, challenges, and proposed solutions for EM monitoring in solar panel manufacturing, offering actionable insights for overcoming current barriers.

3.3. Future Trends and Opportunities

To address these challenges, several future trends and opportunities are emerging. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into EM signal interpretation represents a promising avenue for enhancing the accuracy and reliability of defect detection. For example, Due et al. demonstrated that ECT combined with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) has improved the speed and accuracy of identifying surface and subsurface defects in silicon PV cells [89]. Similarly, AI-driven models automate the analysis of RFID-based monitoring data, identifying faults quickly and non-invasively [45,51]. Recent advances extend beyond CNNs to incorporate backpropagation (BP) neural networks for time-series impedance spectroscopy analysis, achieving 96.3% accuracy in predicting cell degradation pathways by learning complex nonlinear relationships in the data, as shown by Chang et al. and Lu et al. [92,93].
Such AI integrations significantly enhance real-time PV quality control, reduce inspection costs, and improve the reliability and sustainability of solar energy systems. Emerging physics-informed machine learning approaches are particularly transformative, embedding Maxwell’s equations directly into neural network architectures to maintain physical consistency while learning from empirical data [85]. For instance, graph neural networks (GNNs) applied to distributed EM sensor arrays can model spatial dependencies across utility-scale PV plants, enabling system-level fault diagnosis with higher precision [86]. These intelligent systems are being progressively deployed in edge computing devices, allowing real-time analysis without cloud dependency—a critical advancement for field applications [94,95].
Other future trends include the development of miniaturized and portable EM sensors, which can be deployed in remote or resource-constrained settings, democratizing access to EM monitoring technologies [96]. The expansion of EM techniques to emerging PV technologies, such as perovskite and organic solar cells [97], also presents significant opportunities. These next-generation materials often exhibit unique electromagnetic properties that require specialized monitoring approaches, creating a demand for innovative EM solutions. Finally, collaboration between academia and industry is essential for driving sustainable innovations in EM monitoring. Joint research initiatives can accelerate the development of cost-effective, high-performance EM systems, while industry partnerships can facilitate the commercialization and scaling of these technologies.

4. Conclusions

This review has demonstrated the transformative potential of electromagnetic (EM) monitoring techniques in advancing sustainable manufacturing and materials processing across the Production–Usage–Recycling (PUR) cycle of solar energy components. By integrating EM techniques into each phase of this cycle, the solar energy industry can achieve significant improvements in material efficiency, process optimization, and product reliability, while minimizing environmental impact and promoting a circular economy.
The EM monitoring framework presented here directly contributes to United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) by improving PV system reliability and efficiency, and Goal 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) through enhanced material recovery rates [98]. These alignments position EM technologies as key enablers of sustainable energy transitions.
The integration of EM monitoring techniques into the PUR cycle represents a significant step toward achieving sustainable manufacturing goals in the solar energy industry. By reducing material waste, optimizing energy efficiency, and enhancing the durability and recyclability of solar energy components, EM techniques contribute to a more sustainable and circular economy. This review underscores the importance of continued research and innovation in EM monitoring to unlock its full potential and drive the transition to a greener future. The methodological framework outlined in this document connects essential electromagnetics with the requirements of industrial sustainability, offering (1) a physics-based method for quality control that reduces silicon waste by enabling early defect identification, (2) non-invasive monitoring solutions that extend module lifetimes, and (3) material recovery processes that achieve greater purity for closed-loop manufacturing. Collectively, these advancements address the solar industry’s trilemma of scaling production while reducing environmental impact and maintaining cost competitiveness.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIartificial intelligence
BPbackpropagation
CNNsconvolutional neural networks
CSPconcentrating solar thermal power
DSdielectric spectroscopy
ECSelectrodynamic eddy current separation
ECTeddy current testing
ECIeddy current imaging
EMelectromagnetic
EVAethylene–vinyl acetate
GNNsgraph neural networks
ISimpedance spectroscopy
IEAInternational Energy Agency
IEA-PVPSIEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme
LF-EMlow-frequency electromagnetic
MF-EMmedium-frequency electromagnetic
MLmachine learning
MPSMicrowave Photonic Sensing
MPTMicrowave Phased Testing
MRmicrowave reflectometry
NDTNon-Destructive Testing
OSCsorganic solar cells
PECpulsed eddy current testing
PIDPotential Induced Degradation
PMRPassive Microwave Radiometry
PSCsperovskite solar cells
PURProduction–Usage–Recycling
PV photovoltaic
RFIDRadio Frequency Identification
SMEsSmall and Medium-sized Enterprises
TCOTransparent Conductive Oxide
UAVunmanned aerial vehicle

References

  1. O’Brien, C. Global Manufacturing and the Sustainable Economy. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2002, 40, 3867–3877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nooman AlMallahi, M.; Al Swailmeen, Y.; Ali Abdelkareem, M.; Ghani Olabi, A.; Elgendi, M. A Path to Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study on the Thirteen Largest Photovoltaic Power Plants. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2024, 22, 100553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hasan, M.M.; Hossain, S.; Mofijur, M.; Kabir, Z.; Badruddin, I.A.; Yunus Khan, T.M.; Jassim, E. Harnessing Solar Power: A Review of Photovoltaic Innovations, Solar Thermal Systems, and the Dawn of Energy Storage Solutions. Energies 2023, 16, 6456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chatzipanagi, A.; Jaeger-Waldau, A.; Letout, S.; Mountraki, A.; Gea, B.J.; Georgakaki, A.; Ince, E.; Schmitz, A. Clean Energy Technology Observatory: Photovoltaics in the European Union-2024 Status Report on Technology Development, Trends, Value Chains and Markets; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hepburn, C.; Qi, Y.; Stern, N.; Ward, B.; Xie, C.; Zenghelis, D. Towards Carbon Neutrality and China’s 14th Five-Year Plan: Clean Energy Transition, Sustainable Urban Development, and Investment Priorities. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnology 2021, 8, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Net Zero by 2050 Data Explorer—Data Tools. Available online: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/net-zero-by-2050-data-explorer (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  7. Guo, J.; Cheng, Y.; Song, X. Sustainable Photovoltaic Recycling to Mitigate Environmental Pollution under Climate and Resource Constraints. J. Ind. Ecol. 2025, 29, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Aleksandra, A.; Sara, B.P.; Małgorzata, J.; Brian, B.; Davide, P.; Miguel, C. Role of Solar PV in Net-Zero Growth: An Analysis of International Manufacturers and Policies. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2024, 32, 607–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Iturralde Carrera, L.A.; Garcia-Barajas, M.G.; Constantino-Robles, C.D.; Álvarez-Alvarado, J.M.; Castillo-Alvarez, Y.; Rodríguez-Reséndiz, J. Efficiency and Sustainability in Solar Photovoltaic Systems: A Review of Key Factors and Innovative Technologies. Eng 2025, 6, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. PVPS Task 13: Performance and Failure Analysis of Photovoltaic Systems—Annex: Degradation and Failure; IEA-PVPS: Redfern, NSW, Australia, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chun, Y.; Bidanda, B. Sustainable Manufacturing and the Role of the International Journal of Production Research. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2013, 51, 7448–7455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dhanraj, J.A.; Mostafaeipour, A.; Velmurugan, K.; Techato, K.; Chaurasiya, P.K.; Solomon, J.M.; Gopalan, A.; Phoungthong, K. An Effective Evaluation on Fault Detection in Solar Panels. Energies 2021, 14, 7770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hwang, B.; Hillmann, S.; Schulze, M.; Klein, M.; Heuer, H. Eddy Current Imaging for Electrical Characterization of Silicon Solar Cells and TCO Layers. In Proceedings of the Smart Materials and Nondestructive Evaluation for Energy Systems 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, 9–10 March 2015; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2015; Volume 9439, pp. 70–78. [Google Scholar]
  14. Matacena, I.; Lancellotti, L.; Lisi, N.; Delli Veneri, P.; Guerriero, P.; Daliento, S. Impedance Spectroscopy for the Characterization of the All-Carbon Graphene-Based Solar Cell. Energies 2020, 13, 1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Matacena, I.; Guerriero, P.; Lancellotti, L.; Alfano, B.; De Maria, A.; La Ferrara, V.; Mercaldo, L.V.; Miglietta, M.L.; Polichetti, T.; Rametta, G.; et al. Impedance Spectroscopy Analysis of Perovskite Solar Cell Stability. Energies 2023, 16, 4951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Al Mahdi, H.; Leahy, P.G.; Alghoul, M.; Morrison, A.P. A Review of Photovoltaic Module Failure and Degradation Mechanisms: Causes and Detection Techniques. Solar 2024, 4, 43–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. IEC 61215-1: 2021; Terrestrial Photovoltaic (PV) Modules—Design Qualification and Type Approval—Part 1: Test Requirements. International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  18. Köntges, M.; Kajari-Schröder, S.; Kunze, I.; Jahn, U. Crack Statistic of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules. In Proceedings of the 26th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Hamburg, Germany, 5–9 September 2011; Volume 26, pp. 3290–3294. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zoughi, R.; Ganchev, S. Microwave Nondestructive Evaluation; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kharkovsky, S.; Zoughi, R. Microwave and Millimeter Wave Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation-Overview and Recent Advances. IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag. 2007, 10, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sophian, A.; Tian, G.Y.; Taylor, D.; Rudlin, J. Electromagnetic and Eddy Current NDT: A Review. Insight 2001, 43, 302–306. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ahamer, G. Potentials and Costs for the Transition of Decentralised Energy Infrastructure in Europe. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2023, 22, 171–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Breit, T.P. Balcony PV Power Plants in Austria: Public Support for Adoption and Differences in Implementation Between Austria and Germany. PhD Thesis, Technische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  24. Deng, Y.; Liu, X. Electromagnetic Imaging Methods for Nondestructive Evaluation Applications. Sensors 2011, 11, 11774–11808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dallas, W.; Polupan, O.; Ostapenko, S. Resonance Ultrasonic Vibrations for Crack Detection in Photovoltaic Silicon Wafers. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2007, 18, 852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Deriche, M.; Raad, M.W.; Suliman, W. An IOT Based Sensing System for Remote Monitoring of PV Panels. In Proceedings of the 2019 16th International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD), Istanbul, Turkey, 21–24 March 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 393–397. [Google Scholar]
  27. Doni, A.; Dughiero, F. Electrothermal Heating Process Applied to C-Si PV Recycling. In Proceedings of the 2012 38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 3–8 June 2012; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 000757–000762. [Google Scholar]
  28. Akram, M.W.; Li, G.; Jin, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhu, C.; Shauket, I.; Ahmad, A. Defect Detection and Degradation Analysis in Photovoltaic Modules Using Thermography, Spectroscopy, and Current–Voltage Measurements, and Quantitative Assessment of Their Impact. Energy Technol. 2020, 8, 2000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jackson, J.D. Classical Electrodynamics; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  30. García-Martín, J.; Gómez-Gil, J.; Vázquez-Sánchez, E. Non-Destructive Techniques Based on Eddy Current Testing. Sensors 2011, 11, 2525–2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhong, X.; Sun, Q.; Chen, D.; Yuan, J.; Wang, F.; Chen, S.; Zhong, L. Effect of Eddy Current for Photovoltaic Module on Lightning-Induced Overvoltage Caused by Electromagnetic Coupling. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2023, 65, 850–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Papargyri, L.; Theristis, M.; Kubicek, B.; Krametz, T.; Mayr, C.; Papanastasiou, P.; Georghiou, G.E. Modelling and Experimental Investigations of Microcracks in Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaics: A Review. Renew. Energy 2020, 145, 2387–2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, N.; Liu, X.; Zhou, B.; He, C.; Yang, J.; Wu, B. Eddy Current O-Scan and C-Scan Imaging Techniques for Macrocrack Detection in Silicon Solar Cells. Nondestruct. Test. Eval. 2019, 34, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tan, J.; Jia, S.; Ramakrishna, S. End-of-Life Photovoltaic Modules. Energies 2022, 15, 5113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sunny, A.I.; Tian, G.Y.; Zhang, J.; Pal, M. Low Frequency (LF) RFID Sensors and Selective Transient Feature Extraction for Corrosion Characterisation. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2016, 241, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Felsch, T.; Strauss, G.; Perez, C.; Rego, J.M.; Maurtua, I.; Susperregi, L.; Rodríguez, J.R. Robotized Inspection of Vertical Structures of a Solar Power Plant Using NDT Techniques. Robotics 2015, 4, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sophian, A.; Tian, G.; Fan, M. Pulsed Eddy Current Non-Destructive Testing and Evaluation: A Review. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2017, 30, 500–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ennemri, A.; Logerais, P.O.; Balistrou, M.; Durastanti, J.F.; Belaidi, I. Cracks in Silicon Photovoltaic Modules: A Review. J. Optoelectron. Adv. Mater. 2019, 21, 74–92. [Google Scholar]
  39. Romero, B.; del Pozo, G.; Arredondo, B.; Martín-Martín, D.; Hernández-Balaguera, E.; González, M.d.C.L. Characterization of Organic and Perovskite Solar Cells by Impedance Spectroscopy. In Proceedings of the Women in Renewable Energy (WiRE), San Diego, CA, USA, 30 August 2019; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2019; Volume 11095, p. 110950N. [Google Scholar]
  40. Aimaganbetov, K.; Yerezhep, D.; Kishkenebayev, M.; Chuchvaga, N.; Almas, N.; Tokmoldin, S.; Tokmoldin, N. Characterization of a Heterojunction Silicon Solar Cell by Means of Impedance Spectroscopy. Micromachines 2024, 15, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. von Hauff, E.; Klotz, D. Impedance Spectroscopy for Perovskite Solar Cells: Characterisation, Analysis, and Diagnosis. J. Mater. Chem. C 2022, 10, 742–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Erdil, U.; Khenkin, M.; Bernardes De Araujo, W.M.; Emery, Q.; Lauermann, I.; Paraskeva, V.; Norton, M.; Vediappan, S.; Kumar, D.K.; Gupta, R.K.; et al. Delamination of Perovskite Solar Cells in Thermal Cycling and Outdoor Tests. Energy Tech. 2025, 13, 2401280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sinha, A.; Bliss, M.; Wu, X.; Roy, S.; Gottschalg, R.; Gupta, R. Cross-Characterization for Imaging Parasitic Resistive Losses in Thin-Film Photovoltaic Modules. J. Imaging 2016, 2, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Węglarski, M.; Jankowski-Mihułowicz, P.; Chamera, M.; Dziedzic, J.; Kwaśnicki, P. Designing Antennas for RFID Sensors in Monitoring Parameters of Photovoltaic Panels. Micromachines 2020, 11, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Węglarski, M.; Jankowski-Mihułowicz, P.; Kamuda, K.; Pyt, P.; Pitera, G.; Lichoń, W.; Chamera, M.; Ciejka, C. RFID Sensors for Monitoring Glazing Units Integrating Photovoltaic Modules. Energies 2022, 15, 1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Solar, H.; Beriain, A.; Rezola, A.; Del Rio, D.; Berenguer, R. A 22-m Operation Range Semi-Passive UHF RFID Sensor Tag with Flexible Thermoelectric Energy Harvester. IEEE Sens. J. 2022, 22, 19797–19808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Solar, H.; Beriain, A.; Berenguer, R.; Sosa, J.; Montiel-Nelson, J.A. Semi-Passive UHF RFID Sensor Tags: A Comprehensive Review. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 135583–135599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Smith, Y.R.; Nagel, J.R.; Rajamani, R.K. Electrodynamic Eddy Current Separation of End-of-Life PV Materials. In Energy Technology 2017; Zhang, L., Drelich, J.W., Neelameggham, N.R., Guillen, D.P., Haque, N., Zhu, J., Sun, Z., Wang, T., Howarter, J.A., Tesfaye, F., et al., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 379–386. [Google Scholar]
  49. Smith, Y.R.; Nagel, J.R.; Rajamani, R.K. Eddy Current Separation for Recovery of Non-Ferrous Metallic Particles: A Comprehensive Review. Miner. Eng. 2019, 133, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Preet, S.; Smith, S.T. A Comprehensive Review on the Recycling Technology of Silicon Based Photovoltaic Solar Panels: Challenges and Future Outlook. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 448, 141661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kantareddy, S.N.R.; Mathews, I.; Sun, S.; Layurova, M.; Thapa, J.; Correa-Baena, J.-P.; Bhattacharyya, R.; Buonassisi, T.; Sarma, S.E.; Peters, I.M. Perovskite PV-Powered RFID: Enabling Low-Cost Self-Powered IoT Sensors. IEEE Sens. J. 2020, 20, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pozar, D.M. Microwave Engineering, 4th ed.; University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Amherst, MA, USA; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 26–30. [Google Scholar]
  53. Metaxas, A.C. Microwave Heating. Power Eng. J. 1991, 5, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tayari, F.; Teixeira, S.S.; Graca, M.P.F.; Nassar, K.I. A Comprehensive Review of Recent Advances in Perovskite Materials: Electrical, Dielectric, and Magnetic Properties. Inorganics 2025, 13, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chen, L.-F.; Ong, C.K.; Neo, C.P.; Varadan, V.V.; Varadan, V.K. Microwave Electronics: Measurement and Materials Characterization; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  56. Krupka, J. Microwave Measurements of Electromagnetic Properties of Materials. Materials 2021, 14, 5097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Bertness, K.A.; Schlager, J.B.; Sanford, N.A.; Imtiaz, A.; Wallis, T.M.; Weber, J.C.; Kabos, P.; Mansfield, L.M. Application of Microwave Scanning Probes to Photovoltaic Materials. In Proceedings of the 2010 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 20–25 June 2010; pp. 001669–001674. [Google Scholar]
  58. Yurchenko, A.V.; Novikov, A.N.; Kitaeva, M.V. A Resonator Microwave Sensor for Measuring the Parameters of Solar-Quality Silicon. Russ. J. Nondestruct. Test. 2012, 48, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hinken, J. Microwave Testing (μT): An Overview. FI Test-und Messtechnik GmbH. 2016. Available online: https://fitm.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/N38e-Microwave-Testing_An-Overview.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  60. Dunsmore, J.P. Handbook of Microwave Component Measurements: With Advanced VNA Techniques; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  61. Turpin, T.W.; Baktur, R. Meshed Patch Antennas Integrated on Solar Cells. IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett. 2009, 8, 693–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Thandullu Naganathan, S.B.; Dhandapani, S. Patch Antenna Integrated on Solar Cells for Green Wireless Communication: A Feature Oriented Survey and Design Issues. Int. J. RF Microw. Comput. Aided Eng. 2022, 32, e22926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lazzoni, V.; Brizi, D.; Stagliano, N.; Giordano, C.; Pecoraro, E.; Anichini, M.; Ugolini, F.; Bindi, M.; Argenti, G.; Monorchio, A. Development of a Microwave Sensor for the Non-Invasive Detection of Plant Responses to Water Stress: A Practical Application on Maize (Zea Mays L.). Biosyst. Eng. 2024, 246, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zolfaghari, A.; Zolfaghari, A.; Kolahan, F. Reliability and Sensitivity of Magnetic Particle Nondestructive Testing in Detecting the Surface Cracks of Welded Components. Nondestruct. Test. Eval. 2018, 33, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Segbefia, O.K.; Imenes, A.G.; Saetre, T.O. Moisture Ingress in Photovoltaic Modules: A Review. Sol. Energy 2021, 224, 889–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Agroui, K.; Belghachi, A.; Collins, G.; Farenc, J. Quality Control of EVA Encapsulant in Photovoltaic Module Process and Outdoor Exposure. Desalination 2007, 209, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cornigli, D.; Reggiani, S.; Gnudi, A.; Gnani, E.; Baccarani, G.; Fabiani, D.; Varghese, D.; Tuncer, E.; Krishnan, S.; Nguyen, L. Characterization of Dielectric Properties and Conductivity in Encapsulation Materials with High Insulating Filler Contents. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2018, 25, 2421–2428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Crewell, S.; Wendisch, M.; Löhnert, U. Passive Solar and Microwave Spectral Radiometers. In Springer Handbook of Atmospheric Measurements; Foken, T., Ed.; Springer Handbooks; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 821–840. ISBN 978-3-030-52170-7. [Google Scholar]
  69. Polívka, J. Microwave Radiometry and Applications. Int. J. Infrared Milli Waves 1995, 16, 1593–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Márquez, F.P.G.; Ramírez, I.S. Condition Monitoring System for Solar Power Plants with Radiometric and Thermographic Sensors Embedded in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Measurement 2019, 139, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cresson, P.-Y.; Ricard, C.; Dubois, L.; Vaucher, S.; Lasri, T.; Pribetich, J. Temperature Measurement by Microwave Radiometry. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, 12–15 May 2008; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 1344–1349. [Google Scholar]
  72. Dubois, L.; Sozanski, J.-P.; Tessier, V.; Camart, J.-C.; Fabre, J.-J.; Pribetich, J.; Chive, M. Temperature Control and Thermal Dosimetry by Microwave Radiometry in Hyperthermia. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 1996, 44, 1755–1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Stein, J.; Romero, R.; Foree, R. PV Module Manufacturing and Testing: Industry Requirements for Perovskite PV Modules; Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM): Albuquerque, NM, USA; Los Alamos, NM, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  74. Hsi, E.P.; Shieh, J.C. Financial Challenges and Risk Management of Solar Warranty Risks. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 7th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (WCPEC) (A Joint Conference of 45th IEEE PVSC, 28th PVSEC & 34th EU PVSEC), Waikoloa, HI, USA, 10–15 June 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1278–1281. [Google Scholar]
  75. Bands, B. Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR Parts 0 and 15; Citeseer: University Park, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  76. Michail, A.; Livera, A.; Tziolis, G.; Candás, J.L.C.; Fernandez, A.; Yudego, E.A.; Martínez, D.F.; Antonopoulos, A.; Tripolitsiotis, A.; Partsinevelos, P. A Comprehensive Review of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle-Based Approaches to Support Photovoltaic Plant Diagnosis. Heliyon 2024, 10, e23983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Cui, L.; Ahmad, F.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, W.; Nižetić, S. High-Quality Oil Recovered from Waste Solar Panel through Using Microwave-Assisted Pyrolysis. Sol. Energy 2024, 267, 112239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lam, S.S.; Chase, H.A. A Review on Waste to Energy Processes Using Microwave Pyrolysis. Energies 2012, 5, 4209–4232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pang, S.; Yan, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, D.; Li, S.; Ma, W.; Wei, K. Enhanced Separation of Different Layers in Photovoltaic Panel by Microwave Field. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2021, 230, 111213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Frediani, M.; Frediani, P.; Innocenti, G.; Mellone, I.; Simoni, R.; Oteri, G. Microwave-Assisted Pyrolysis Process: From a Laboratory Scale to an Industrial Plant. In Recent Microwave Technologies; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  81. Jung, B.; Park, J.; Seo, D.; Park, N. Sustainable System for Raw-Metal Recovery from Crystalline Silicon Solar Panels: From Noble-Metal Extraction to Lead Removal. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 4079–4083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Komoto, K.; Lee, J.-S.; Zhang, J.; Ravikumar, D.; Sinha, P.; Wade, A.; Heath, G.A. End-of-Life Management of Photovoltaic Panels: Trends in PV Module Recycling Technologies; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  83. Tao, R.; Li, B.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yuan, H.; Gu, J.; Chen, Y. Pyrolysis Mechanism and Recycling Strategy of End-of-Life Photovoltaic Modules Based on the Experiment and the Density Functional Theory. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2023, 217, 110545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lenzhofer, M.; Neumaier, L.; Malago, P.; Kosel, J.; Ortner, M. Current Measurement System for Solder Joint Quality Analysis in Photovoltaic Modules. In Proceedings of the SMSI 2021—System of Units and Metreological Infrastructure, Nuremberg, Germany, 3–6 May 2021; pp. 292–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Morozov, O.G.; Sakhabutdinov, A.Z.; Matveev, D.N.; Nureev, I.I.; Khodjanepesov, K.A. Microwave Photonic Sensing for Temperature Monitoring of On-Board Photovoltaic Panels. In Proceedings of the 2024 Systems of Signals Generating and Processing in the Field of on Board Communications, Moscow, Russia, 12–14 March 2024; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  86. Brussa, G. Photovoltaic Panels. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. In Waste Flows Generated by the Energy Transition; Grosso, M., Rigamonti, L., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; pp. 103–134. ISBN 978-3-031-88950-9. [Google Scholar]
  87. Kantareddy, S.N.R.; Mathews, I.; Bhattacharyya, R.; Peters, I.M.; Buonassisi, T.; Sarma, S.E. Long Range Battery-Less PV-Powered RFID Tag Sensors. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 6989–6996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hempel, H.; Savenjie, T.J.; Stolterfoht, M.; Neu, J.; Failla, M.; Paingad, V.C.; Kužel, P.; Heilweil, E.J.; Spies, J.A.; Schleuning, M.; et al. Predicting Solar Cell Performance from Terahertz and Microwave Spectroscopy. Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2102776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Du, B.; He, Y.; He, Y.; Duan, J.; Zhang, Y. Intelligent Classification of Silicon Photovoltaic Cell Defects Based on Eddy Current Thermography and Convolution Neural Network. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2020, 16, 6242–6251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Amir, M.; Karim, M.; Bendaha Mourad, B.; Amar, T. Design and Development of a Low Cost Technique for Sorting Household Wastes Using Eddy Current Separation Process. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2016, 73, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Su, B.; Chen, H.; Zhou, Z. BAF-Detector: An Efficient CNN-Based Detector for Photovoltaic Cell Defect Detection. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2021, 69, 3161–3171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chang, Z.; Han, T. Prognostics and Health Management of Photovoltaic Systems Based on Deep Learning: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 205, 114861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lu, S.; Chai, H.; Sahoo, A.; Phung, B.T. Condition Monitoring Based on Partial Discharge Diagnostics Using Machine Learning Methods: A Comprehensive State-of-the-Art Review. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2020, 27, 1861–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wu, Y.; Sicard, B.; Gadsden, S.A. Physics-Informed Machine Learning: A Comprehensive Review on Applications in Anomaly Detection and Condition Monitoring. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 255, 124678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Berghout, T.; Benbouzid, M.; Bentrcia, T.; Ma, X.; Djurović, S.; Mouss, L.-H. Machine Learning-Based Condition Monitoring for PV Systems: State of the Art and Future Prospects. Energies 2021, 14, 6316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Svertoka, E.; Saafi, S.; Rusu-Casandra, A.; Burget, R.; Marghescu, I.; Hosek, J.; Ometov, A. Wearables for Industrial Work Safety: A Survey. Sensors 2021, 21, 3844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Yan, J.; Zheng, Q.; Wang, S.; Tian, Y.; Gong, W.; Gao, F.; Qiu, J.; Li, L.; Yang, S.; Cao, M. Multifunctional Organic–Inorganic Hybrid Perovskite Microcrystalline Engineering and Electromagnetic Response Switching Multi-Band Devices. Adv. Mater. 2023, 35, 2300015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sustainable Development Goals | United Nations Development Programme. Available online: https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals (accessed on 10 June 2025).
Figure 1. PUR cycle with and without using sensing methods; the blue color circular sectors are what can be done with the sensing process, and the red one is without sensing; the red and green rectangles are predictive results of each step of PUR without and with sensing.
Figure 1. PUR cycle with and without using sensing methods; the blue color circular sectors are what can be done with the sensing process, and the red one is without sensing; the red and green rectangles are predictive results of each step of PUR without and with sensing.
Jmmp 09 00225 g001
Figure 2. Categorization of EM sensors based on frequency domains.
Figure 2. Categorization of EM sensors based on frequency domains.
Jmmp 09 00225 g002
Figure 3. (a) PV module structure [34], (b) principle of RFID [35], (c) uniform eddy current probe [21], and (d) working area of the sensor system [36].
Figure 3. (a) PV module structure [34], (b) principle of RFID [35], (c) uniform eddy current probe [21], and (d) working area of the sensor system [36].
Jmmp 09 00225 g003
Figure 4. Principle of Microwave NDT test on device under test (DUT) [59].
Figure 4. Principle of Microwave NDT test on device under test (DUT) [59].
Jmmp 09 00225 g004
Figure 5. Faults detected on solar panel surface and on joints with methods. (A) Eddy current scans with different frequencies of mono-crystalline solar cells with different defects [13]. (B) Experimental specimens: (a) pseudo-welding defect; (b) scratch and uneven surface defects; (c) dent and pseudo-welding defects; (d) scratch defect [13].
Figure 5. Faults detected on solar panel surface and on joints with methods. (A) Eddy current scans with different frequencies of mono-crystalline solar cells with different defects [13]. (B) Experimental specimens: (a) pseudo-welding defect; (b) scratch and uneven surface defects; (c) dent and pseudo-welding defects; (d) scratch defect [13].
Jmmp 09 00225 g005
Table 1. Summary of key performance metrics of LF-EM.
Table 1. Summary of key performance metrics of LF-EM.
MethodFrequency RangeKey MetricsPV Defects DetectedApplication
ECT10 kHz–1 MHzΔZ, phase angleMicrocracks (≥0.2 μm), TCO sheet resistance non-uniformityInline quality control of wafers & coatings
PECDC–100 kHzτ, peak amplitudeBacksheet thinning (10–500 μm), doping variations (5–15% non-uniformity)TCO & encapsulation defect analysis
RFID125 kHz–13.56 MHzΔfr, Q-factorFrame corrosion (0.1–2 mm/year), temperature hotspots (ΔT > 5 °C)Real-time PV diagnostics
Table 2. Functionality of some MF of EM methods.
Table 2. Functionality of some MF of EM methods.
MethodFrequency RangeKey MetricsPV Applications
Microwave NDT1–10 GHzΓ, S21Void/crack detection in PV modules
Non-Contact Microwave Sensors5.8–24 GHzfr, ΔfStructural health monitoring (PV arrays)
Microwave Heating2.45 GHzP, TlocalDelamination/recycling of PV materials
Microwave Pyrolysis0.5–3 GHzP, TlocalPolymer decomposition and material recovery (e.g., EVA, backsheets)
Table 3. Summary of suitability of LF- and MF-EM measurement methods for PUR cycle of PV modules.
Table 3. Summary of suitability of LF- and MF-EM measurement methods for PUR cycle of PV modules.
Frequency of PerformanceMethodsShow Capability in Cycle of the Following:Reasoning
ProductionUsageRecycling
LF-EMEddy current testing (ECT) [13,48]YesYesYesECT operates at low frequencies, ideal for inspecting conductive layers, monitoring corrosion, and separating metals.
LF-EMPulsed eddy current (PEC) [37,84]YesYesYesPEC uses transient electromagnetic fields for defect detection, corrosion monitoring, and metal recovery.
LF-EMElectrodynamic eddy current separation (ECS) [48]NoNoYesECS is specialized for separating conductive materials during recycling, not for production or usage.
LF-EMRFID sensors [45,51]YesYesYesRFID operates at low frequencies and is used for tracking materials and components across all lifecycle steps.
LF-EMImpedance spectroscopy (IS) [39,40]YesYesNoIS operates in medium frequencies, suitable for characterizing electrical properties and monitoring degradation, but not used in recycling.
LF-EMEddy current imaging [13]YesYesNoProvides high-resolution imaging of defects in conductive layers, but not designed for recycling.
MF-EMMicrowave NDT [38,56]YesYesNoMicrowave NDT operates at high frequencies, detecting defects in dielectric materials, but not used for recycling.
MF-EMMicrowave Photonic Sensing (MPS) [85]YesYesNoMPS uses high-frequency microwaves for precise sensing, but not designed for recycling.
MF-EMNon-contact process monitoring [85]YesYesNoEnables real-time monitoring using high-frequency signals, but is not used in recycling.
MF-EMMicrowave-assisted pyrolysis [45,51]NoNoYesUsed for breaking down polymers during recycling, not for production or usage.
MF-EMMicrowave heating for delamination [79]NoNoYesUsed for separating layers in recycling, not for production or usage.
Table 4. Benefits, limitations, challenges, and proposed solutions for EM monitoring in solar panel manufacturing.
Table 4. Benefits, limitations, challenges, and proposed solutions for EM monitoring in solar panel manufacturing.
AspectDetails
Benefits for Sustainable Manufacturing
ProductionReduces material waste, optimizes energy use, and improves process efficiency [24,38,51]
UsageEnsures long-term reliability and performance of solar panels [45,51]
RecyclingEnables efficient material recovery and reduces environmental impact [24,27]
Limitations
SensitivityEM sensors may struggle with detecting micro-defects in heterogeneous materials [89]
High Initial CostHigh initial investment for advanced EM monitoring systems, including sensors, hardware, and software, are expensive, limiting SME adoption [24]
IntegrationChallenges in adapting EM systems to high-speed production lines [38,51]
Calibration IssuesTechniques like IS require precise parameter extraction and advanced modeling [39,40]
Challenges in Solar Panels
Defect DetectionDifficulty in identifying microcracks and delamination in thin-film PV materials [13,84]
DurabilityMonitoring long-term degradation under harsh environmental conditions [45,51]
RecyclingLack of standardized methods for EM-based sorting of end-of-life PV materials [13,27]
Proposed Solutions
AI IntegrationUse machine learning to improve defect detection accuracy and adaptability. CNNs improve defect detection accuracy (e.g., >85% for thermographic analysis) [89,91]
Miniaturized SensorsDevelop portable EM sensors for flexible and cost-effective deployment [24]
StandardizationEstablish industry-wide protocols for EM monitoring in PV manufacturing and recycling [39,40]
Academia–Industry CollaborationJoint research accelerates cost-effective, high-performance EM system development [38,51]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Samimi, M.; Hosseinlaghab, H. Enabling Sustainable Solar Energy Systems Through Electromagnetic Monitoring of Key Components Across Production, Usage, and Recycling: A Review. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2025, 9, 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9070225

AMA Style

Samimi M, Hosseinlaghab H. Enabling Sustainable Solar Energy Systems Through Electromagnetic Monitoring of Key Components Across Production, Usage, and Recycling: A Review. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing. 2025; 9(7):225. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9070225

Chicago/Turabian Style

Samimi, Mahdieh, and Hassan Hosseinlaghab. 2025. "Enabling Sustainable Solar Energy Systems Through Electromagnetic Monitoring of Key Components Across Production, Usage, and Recycling: A Review" Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing 9, no. 7: 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9070225

APA Style

Samimi, M., & Hosseinlaghab, H. (2025). Enabling Sustainable Solar Energy Systems Through Electromagnetic Monitoring of Key Components Across Production, Usage, and Recycling: A Review. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing, 9(7), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp9070225

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop