## 3 Results and Discussion
The exception to this trend is Brasilia, seemingly due to its low latitude, with similar solar radiations in the horizontal plane and in a plane with an inclination equal to the location's latitude, and a constant mains water temperature throughout the year (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & \(\rho\) \\ \hline Latitude & 0.73 \\ Horizontal solar radiation & \(-\)0.94 \\ Solar radiation in a plane with an inclination equal to a location’s latitude & \(-\)0.85 \\ Tmin,year & \(-\)0.89 \\ ATyear & 0.81 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Pearson correlation coefficient (\(\rho\)) between the maximum absolute value of Qsaving (Qsaving,max) and different locations and climates parameters. Overall, the system with an adsorption module presents higher performances in locations where winter and summer are clearly defined, and especially in locations, where winters are colder (higher latitudes), like Beijing and Baltimore and, in a smaller scale, Lisbon and Canberra, as can be seen in Figures 4, 5 and A1 (Appendix A). Additionally, the solar collectors of the system operating at these high latitudes must be oriented with inclinations higher than local latitudes, in order to present the highest performance. In other words, the system's performance is lower for lower latitudes and tends to increase for higher latitudes--locations with a low minimum annual temperature, \(T_{\rm min,year}\), and a large yearly temperature amplitude, \(\Delta T_{\rm year}\). This is noticeable given the strong \(\rho\) coefficients between \(Q_{\rm saving,max}\) and (a) the latitude (0.73, which indicates a better performance for higher latitudes), (b) \(T_{\rm min,year}\) (\(-0.89\), which represents a better performance for lower minimum yearly temperatures), and (c) \(\Delta T_{\rm year}\) (0.81, pointing to a better performance for higher annual temperature amplitudes), as presented in Table 2.  
Additionally, a detailed yearly evolution of the best \(Q_{\rm saving}\) for each location (corresponding to the best solar collector slope) is presented in Figure A2 (Appendix A). These results allow one to observe when and in which way the system with an adsorption module is more or less effective than its conventional counterpart. It can be seen that, for locations at higher latitudes, \(Q_{\rm saving}\) tends to increase gradually throughout the year, thus leading to an advantage over the conventional system during all, or at least most of, the year and resulting in higher annual (final) values. In contrast, the rising evolution of \(Q_{\rm saving}\) is much less distinct for locations at lower latitudes, sometimes adding up only during limited periods/seasons, thus leading to lower annual energy savings. In the case of New Delhi, the fact that it presents the highest yearly solar radiation (both in the horizontal and inclined planes), combined with a higher mains water inlet temperature (see Figure A1 in Appendix A), leads to a situation for which the proposed system is not an advantage: very low \(Q_{\rm backup}\) and almost null \(Q_{\rm saving}\). On the other hand, in Brasilia, the mains water temperature is not so high, which combined with median solar radiation values leads to a more distinct evolution of \(Q_{\rm saving}\), especially in the periods of decreasing solar radiation (Figure A2 in Appendix A) and thus to a higher annual \(Q_{\rm saving}\) than in the case of New Delhi. It is also noticeable that in the locations where the system with an adsorption module is more effective (i.e., all the locations except New Delhi and Brasilia), \(Q_{\rm saving}\) tends to rise more distinctively during winter. The exception is Beijing, where \(Q_{\rm saving}\) adds up steadily throughout the year, given the lowest yearly solar radiation and the comparatively lower inlet temperature of the mains water (see Figure A1 in Appendix A).