See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51818219

Electrical Conductivity Measurements of

Nanofluids and Development of New
Correlations

Article in Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology · August 2011

DOI: 10.1166/jnn.2011.4217 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

15 592

4 authors, including:

Ravikanth S Vajjha Debasmita Misra

Daikin University of Alaska Fairbanks
26 PUBLICATIONS 1,531 CITATIONS 75 PUBLICATIONS 730 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Debendra K. Das
University of Alaska Fairbanks
65 PUBLICATIONS 2,439 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Debendra K. Das on 18 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Copyright © 2011 American Scientific Publishers Journal of
All rights reserved Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Printed in the United States of America Vol. 11, 1–8, 2011

Electrical Conductivity Measurements of Nanofluids and

Development of New Correlations
Hanumantharao Konakanchi, Ravikanth Vajjha, Debasmita Misra, and Debendra Das∗
College of Engineering and Mines, University of Alaska Fairbanks, P.O. Box 755905, Fairbanks, AK, 99775-5905, USA

In this study the electrical conductivity of aluminum oxide (Al2 O3 , silicon dioxide (SiO2  and zinc
oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles dispersed in propylene glycol and water mixture were measured in the
temperature range of 0  C to 90  C. The volumetric concentration of nanoparticles in these fluids
ranged from 0 to 10% for different nanofluids. The particle sizes considered were from 20 nm to
70 nm. The electrical conductivity measuring apparatus and the measurement procedure were val-
idated by measuring the electrical conductivity of a calibration fluid, whose properties are known
accurately. The measured electrical conductivity values agreed within ±1% with the published
data reported by the manufacturer. Following the validation, the electrical conductivities of different
nanofluids were measured. The measurements showed that electrical conductivity of nanofluids
increased with an increase in temperature and also with an increase in particle volumetric concen-
tration. For the same nanofluid at a fixed volumetric concentration, the electrical conductivity was
found to be higher for smaller particle sizes. From the experimental data, empirical models were
developed for three nanofluids to express the electrical conductivity as functions of temperature,
volumetric concentration and the size of the nanoparticles.
Keywords: Electrical Conductivity, Nanofluids, Nanoparticles, Particle Size, Propylene Glycol,
Volumetric Concentration.

1. INTRODUCTION
In the past decade there has been a substantial amount of
research on nanofluids, which are dispersions of nanoscale
particles in regular fluids. Extensive experimental and the-
oretical studies including those of Jwo et al.,1 Yu et al.,2
Vajjha et al.3 have established that nanofluids have sub-
stantially higher thermal conductivity than their baseflu-
ids, in which the particles are dispersed. An impact of
this phenomenon is reflected in enhancing the convective
heat transfer coefficient of nanofluids. Therefore, nanoflu-
ids can be used as a successful coolant in many indus-
trial applications, such as the plasma arc cutters (PAC),
which operate at very high temperature of the order of
25000 K (Ramakrishna and Rogozinski).4 For many mate-
rials their thermal and electrical conductivities behave in
similar manners. Therefore, it is expected that just as the
thermal conductivity of nanofluid is higher than their base-
fluid, similarly the electrical conductivity of nanofluids
may be higher than those of their basefluids.
In plasma arc cutters, the electrodes generate the plasma
arc and are subjected to intense heat and must require
∗
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
direct cooling. Nemchinsky and Severance5 describe that
an important factor influencing the erosion of cathode in
plasma arc cutting is the cooling of the electrode. The bet-
ter it is cooled the lower is the erosion rate. On the higher
power side, there are mechanized cutting designed to use
high currents of the order of 400 A for oxygen cutting and
about 1000 A for argon–hydrogen mixture cutting. Water
is commonly used as coolant but for operation at low tem-
peratures, ethylene glycol or propylene glycol and water
mixtures are necessary.
The electrodes are hollow milled and a liquid tube is
located in the center to provide a high flow velocity of
the coolant in the passage. The coolant convects away
the high degree of heat from the interior of the electrode
and torch parts. In this type of torch design, the nozzle
which is the outer annular structure surrounding the elec-
trode is also cooled by liquid. As the demand on thickness,
speed, strength and precision of metal cutting advances,
the heat flux generated within the metal body of PAC
grows in intensity. Therefore, better heat transfer fluids
are necessary to prevent possible overheating. An over-
heated plasma arc cutting system will wear out the torch
parts prematurely and may burn out the torch. Therefore,
nanofluids may be better coolants than their basefluid for

J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2011, Vol. 11, No. xx 1533-4880/2011/11/001/008 doi:10.1166/jnn.2011.4217 1

 Electrical Conductivity Measurements of Nanofluids and Development of New Correlations
this application. They will be able to maintain the temper-
atures of the cathode and nozzle at the desired level at a
lower flow rate thus needing smaller passages and lower
pumping power. On the other hand, the metal cathode and
nozzle can be cooled to a lower temperature by nanofluids
at the same volumetric flow as conventional coolant, thus
diminishing the erosion rate.
Ramakrishna and Rogozinski4 explain that for most effi-
cient performance of plasma arc cutters, the electric power
(V × I) of the arc (V is the voltage of the plasma at the
nozzle exit with respect to cathode and I is the arc current)
should go into gas heating within the torch, without being
lost to the nozzle wall. Therefore, there is a possibility that
the higher electrical conductivity of nanofluids may affect
this electrical power.
Since the fluid flows in the passages in metallic cathode
and nozzle, which serves as the anode, the electrical con-
ductivity of the liquid may influence the life span of elec-
trodes. Therefore, it is essential that the designers know
the electrical conductivity values of nanofluids accurately.
With this knowledge, trade-off studies can be conducted by
comparing the advantage gained by more efficient cooling
of electrodes versus the effect of higher electrical conduc-
tivity on erosion of electrodes.
To fulfill this need, good data on electrical conductivity
of nanofluids as a function of nanoparticle material, aver-
age particle size, volumetric concentration and tempera-
ture are necessary. However, such information on electrical
(2)
RESEARCH ARTICLE
conductivity of nanofluids is not available in the current lit-
erature. Therefore, the objective of this present study was
to measure the electrical conductivity of several nanoflu-
ids and develop suitable correlations, which can be used
in applications such as the PAC. Additionally, the data
from this study will fulfill the need in other applications,
where electrical conductivity of fluids plays a vital role.
Examples are: liquid flow in microchips containing semi-
conductors, electronic cooling systems, colloidal science,
paints, polishing process and heat exchangers in power
plants and heavy industries. Cruz et al.6 have shown that
the electrical conductivity of fluids containing average par-
ticle size of 500 nm and additives of varying ionic concen-
trations, strongly affect the stability of suspensions. Since
a stable dispersion is very important for nanofluids, know-
ing its electrical conductivity accurately can be beneficial
in designing stably suspended fluid suspensions. Propy-
lene glycol and water mixture (PG/W 60:40 by mass) is
widely used as a heat transfer fluid in cold regions, such as
Alaska, where use of water will lead to failure and damage
of systems due to freezing. Therefore, our measurements
have focused on propylene glycol based nanofluids.
2. THEORETICAL INFORMATION
Wang and Hirata7 presented an equation for the electrical
conductivity of colloidal suspensions. The equation is a
2 J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 11, 1–8, 2011
Konakanchi et al.
summation of two conductivities due to ionic motion and
particle motion and was expressed as
3
nf = bf 1 −  + Ze  (1)
4r 3
where Z is the valence of a charged particle, e is the charge
on an electron,  is the electrophoretic mobility of charged
particles and r is the radius of particle. They made mea-
surements using -alumina powder of median particle size
of 200 nm. They used water as the base fluid with addi-
tions of 1N-HCl or 1N-NH4 OH to vary the pH of nanoflu-
ids between 2.0 to 10.0. Their measurements showed that
the electrical conductivity was a function of the pH of
the base fluid and nanofluid. The values of electrical con-
ductivity of nanofluid nf were higher than those of the
basefluid bf , due to the contribution of charged mobile
alumina particles. Both values of nf and bf showed a
minimum at pH in the range of 7 to 8. The electrophoretic
mobility  and the valence of charged alumina particle Z
varied with pH. There were no measurements presented on
the effect of the temperature in their study, therefore, their
measurements were possibly taken at room temperature.
Hayashi8 verified the electrical conductivity–
temperature relation for natural waters proposed by
Sorensen and Glass,9 which was linear in a temperature
range of 0 to 30  C.
t = 25 1 + at − 25
In Eq. (2) the temperature t is in  C and 25  C was taken as
a reference temperature. The electrical conductivities 25
and t are in S/cm at reference temperature and at t  C
respectively. The temperature correction factor a ( C−1 
adopted by various researchers varied from 0.0191 to
0.025. For temperatures higher than 30  C, Hayashi rec-
ommended that a viscosity based equation of Sorensen
and Glass was more accurate, because it accounted for the
nonlinear viscosity-temperature relationship.
 
t −b
t = 25 (3)
25
In Eq. (3) t and 25 are the viscosity of pure water
at temperatures t  C and 25  C. Hayashi evaluated the
exponent b from his measurements. It ranged between
0.806 and 0.933 with an average value of 0.877 based on
the results of five different types of water having vastly
different salinity and chemical composition. Note that the
(2) and (3) equations are only valid for single phase liquid
with no suspensions.
Cruz et al.6 studied the electrical conductivity of aque-
ous suspensions of -alumina particles of average size
520 nm up to a 35% volumetric concentration. They varied
the ionic strength of the nanofluids by adding appropri-
ate amount of NH4 Cl. Their measurements showed that
the electrical conductivity increased substantially with an
Konakanchi et al. Electrical Conductivity Measurements of Nanofluids and Development of New Correlations
increase in the NH4 Cl additions. For the nanofluid with-
out any NH4 Cl addition the conductivity increased with
the increase in volumetric concentration of particles. By
classifying the particles under three categories, p  bf ,
p = bf , p  bf they examined the interaction potential
between a pair of particles. They presented the conditions
of ionic strength that would make the suspensions very sta-
ble, and the ionic conditions that would make the suspen-
sion move toward coagulation. Their results did not show
any measurements of electrical conductivity of suspen-
sions at different temperatures. Cruz et al.6 also presented
Maxwell’s model for the electrical conductivity of suspen-
sions for spherical particles, which is given as Eq. (4).
nf 2bf + p − 2bf − p 
Ganguly et al.13 measured the electrical conductivity of
Al2 O3 nanoparticles in deionized water of average parti-
cle size 13 nm up to a volumetric concentration of 3%
within the temperature range of 25–45  C. They expressed
that the electrical conductivity of the nanofluid increased
with an increase in temperature, and also it increased with
an increase in the volumetric concentration. They men-
tioned that the Maxwell equation developed for electri-
cal conductivity of random suspension of microparticles
underpredicted the values when applied to suspensions of
nanoparticles. From their experimental data they presented
an empirical correlation valid for the Al2 O3 nanofluid in
the temperature range of 25  C to 45  C given by
nf − bf
= (4)
bf 2bf + p + bf − p 
This model is based upon the assumption that the parti-
cles are randomly distributed and at distances much larger
than their size. Therefore, there is no interaction among
them and the electrical field surrounding each particle is
undisturbed.
Abedian and Baker10 have presented a correlation for
electrical conductivity of single phase liquid by measuring
the electrical conductivity and viscosity of five liquids used
as gas turbine lubricants. The equation they presented is
2ZCo
= (5)
R
where viscosity  = AeB/T −To 
(6)
In Eq. (5) Z, Co   and R are ionic valence, concentra-
tion of charged species, a constant equal to 4 for poly-
mer solution and mean molecular size respectively. The
constants A and B in Eq. (6) are obtained from viscosity
measurements.
Glover et al.11 measured the electrical conductivity of
single wall carbon nanotubes dispersed in 50% water and
50% ethylene glycol mixture. They observed a linear trend
in the increase of the electrical conductivity with increase
in weight percentage of carbon nanotubes. A 0.5 weight
percent nanofluid exhibited 13 times the electrical conduc-
tivity of the base fluid. No measurements with temperature
variation were noted.
Wong and Kurma12 pointed out that presently there was
insufficient data published on electrical conductivity of
nanofluids and good data were needed for an accurate
determination of this property. To initiate research on this
property, they performed measurements of electrical con-
ductivity of alumina nanofluid containing mean particle
diameter of 36 nm in deionized water as the base fluid.
Their results showed the electrical conductivity of alu-
mina nanofluid increased almost linearly with increase in
the volumetric concentration of particles. No temperature
dependency was studied by them and no correlation for
the electrical conductivity of the nanofluid was presented
by them.
J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 11, 1–8, 2011
= 3679049 + 1085799T − 436384 (7)
bf
where T is in  C.
3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND
PROCEDURE
3.1. Material Preparation
In this study three types of nanofluids, namely Al2 O3 , SiO2
and ZnO nanoparticles dispersed in PG/W (60:40) were
used. Original concentrated aqueous suspensions of afore-
mentioned nanofluids were procured from Alfa Aesar14
and Nanostructured and Amorphous Materials, Inc.15 The
RESEARCH ARTICLE
characteristics of materials used in our experiments are
tabulated below.
From these concentrated parent nanofluids, test sam-
ples of different volumetric concentration were prepared.
The exact mass of PG/W (60:40) mixture was calculated
to attain a desired volumetric concentration of nanofluid.
Next, using a precise electronic mass balance, the calcu-
lated amount of PG/W (60:40) mixture was added to the
concentrated nanofluid by pipettes to reach the exact level
of particle volumetric concentration. In this way nanofluid
samples starting with 1% volumetric concentration to a
maximum of 10% could be prepared. It was only the high
concentration of 45 nm Al2 O3 parent fluid with the ini-
tial concentration of 50% that yielded a 10% concentration
sample. The others yielded sample concentrations of ≤6%.
3.1.1. Sonication
The nanofluid samples were subjected to ultrasonication
in a Branson Model 551017 sonicator under a frequency
of 40 kHz. The ultrasonicator bath was filled with water
up to the designated operating level. Then the water
was degassed for 5 minutes for removal of dissolved
gases as instructed by the manufacturer. Subsequently, the
nanofluid sample was placed in the water bath and son-
icated for about 3 hours to ensure uniform dispersion of
nanoparticles.
3
 Electrical Conductivity Measurements of Nanofluids and Development of New Correlations Konakanchi et al.

3.2. Setup 100

Experimental data

Electrical conductivity σ μS/cm

95
The experimental setup, shown in Figure 1, consists of Manufacturer’s data
a Hanna HI 452118 conductivity bench meter. The probe 90
HI 76312 is a platinum 4-ring conductivity probe, which 85
is immersed into the liquid to a depth designated by a
80
ring for correct reading. When inserted into the nanofluid,
the probe measures the temperature and electrical con- 75
ductivity of nanofluid in  C and S/cm respectively. For 70
measurements above room temperature (around 20  C) the
65
nanofluid was heated to various temperature levels up to
90  C by a heater, VWR Model 320.19 The heater has the 60
capability to stir the liquid with a magnetic stirrer at dif- 270 274 278 282 286 290 294 298 302 306 310

ferent rpm to help disperse the nanoparticles uniformly. Temparature K

The stirrer was removed from the beaker when electrical
conductivity was being measured to eliminate its effect on
readings. The accuracy of the conductivity meter specified
by the manufacturer is ±1% of the reading. This conduc-
tivity meter and the probe have the capability to measure
electrical conductivity from 0 to 10,000 S/cm with set-
tings in four ranges for four different resolutions. The liq-
uid temperature range over which the meter and probe are
suitable is −20  C to 120  C. For measurements at tem-
peratures lower than the room temperature, the nanofluid
samples were cooled in a temperature controlled freezer
(FS 202 Chamber).20 The samples were ultrasonicated for
3 hours before being placed in the freezer chamber. A
steady state temperature down to 0  C could be reached
within 30 minutes, after which the conductivity measure-
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Fig. 2. Benchmark test case for the electrical conductivity of the cali-
bration solution, Hanna HI 7033.
test showed that the apparatus was working correctly and
the measurement procedure was correct. With this confir-
mation, the electrical conductivities of three nanofluids of
varying concentrations, particle size at temperatures rang-
ing from 273K to 363 K (0  C–90  C) were measured.
Many of these measurements were repeated to ensure the
reproducibility of this data.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Base Fluid Data

ments were taken.
3.3. Benchmark Test Case
The benchmark test of the electrical conductivity meter
and the probe was performed using the conductivity cal-
ibration liquid of Hanna designated as HI 7033. These
electrical conductivities measured at various temperatures
In the present study, PG/W (60:40) was used as the base-
fluid to prepare different types of nanofluids. Therefore,
the electrical conductivity of this base fluid was measured
first, which represented the conductivity values when the
nanoparticle concentration is zero. The results of this mea-
surement are shown in Figure 3. A second order polyno-
mial relation fits the data well.
of the calibration liquid have been plotted in Figure 2. bf = 2316 × 10−5 T 2 − 1066178 × 10−2 T
For comparison the conductivity values of this liquid pro-
+ 127618050 with R2 = 09998 (7)
vided by the manufacturer have also been plotted in this
figure. It was observed that the measured values of the
electrical conductivities and the values published by the 0.5
Electrical conductivity σbf μS\cm

PG/W(60:40)
manufacturer differed by about ±1%. Thus the benchmark 0.45
Polynomial fit
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370
Temperature K

Fig. 1. Experimental setup for measuring the electrical conductivity of Fig. 3. Electrical conductivity of PG/W (60:40) as a function of
nanofluids. temperature.

4 J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 11, 1–8, 2011

Konakanchi et al. Electrical Conductivity Measurements of Nanofluids and Development of New Correlations

This equation can be nondimensionalized by the electri- nanofluid with 20 nm particle size increases by 106%,
cal conductivity bfo of the basefluid at a reference temper- when the volumetric concentration increases over the same
ature To , which was adopted to be the room temperature range from 1 to 4%. For about 30% increase in tem-
of 20  C. perature, the nf increases by 400%, but for a 300%
 2   increase in , nf increases by 100–200%. Therefore, the
bf T T
= 1414710791 − 2222753013 variation of electrical conductivity of nanofluid shows a
bf0 T0 T0 stronger dependence on temperature than the volumetric
+ 9080421369 with R2 = 09998
The Eq. (8) is valid in the range 273 K ≤ T ≤ 363 K.
4.2. Aluminum Oxide Nanofluid
Figure 4 presents a comparison between the electrical con-
ductivity of the Al2 O3 nanofluid in PG/W (60:40) of three
average particle sizes, namely, 10, 20 and 45 nm. Sev-
eral distinct characteristics are observed. The electrical
conductivity of Al2 O3 nanofluids increases as the temper-
ature increases. The electrical conductivity shows a lin-
ear variation with temperature. As an example for the
20 nm nanofluid of 1% concentration, the linear varia-
tion of electrical conductivity with the temperature is given
by Eq. (9).
(8) concentration within the ranges of our experiments. It is
observed that for the same particle volumetric concentra-
tion, at a fixed temperature, nanofluids containing smaller
nanoparticles exhibit higher electrical conductivity than
those containing larger nanoparticles. This is due to the
presence of more number of charged particles of smaller
size for the same volumetric concentration. Comparing
the trends of measured data in Figure 4 with the equa-
tion Wang and Hirata,7 Eq. (1), we observe an agreement.
Their equation predicts that the electrical conductivity of
a nanofluid increases with an increase in concentration
and a decrease in particle size. Our data exhibit the same
trend.
4.3. Silicon Dioxide Nanofluid

nf = 13732T − 35539
The Eq. (9) is valid in the range 273 K ≤ T ≤ 363 K.
The electrical conductivities of 1% Al2 O3 nanofluid
of particle sizes of 10, 20 and 45 nm increased by
441%, 444% and 416% respectively, when the tempera-
ture increased from 273 K to 363 K (34%). At a specific
temperature, as the volumetric concentration of nanofluid
increases, its electrical conductivity increases. For exam-
ple at a temperature of 50  C, the electrical conduc-
tivity of the Al2 O3 nanofluid with an average particle
with R2 = 09923 (9) Figure 5 shows the variation in electrical conductivity of
the SiO2 nanofluid with temperature. Only one average
particle size of 30 nm for this nanofluid was available from
the manufacturer. Similar to the observation for Al2 O3
nanofluids, the electrical conductivity of SiO2 nanofluid
RESEARCH ARTICLE
also increases with an increase in temperature in a lin-
ear fashion for a constant concentration, in the tempera-
ture range of 273 to 363 K. As an example, the electrical
conductivity data of the 3% SiO2 nanofluid matches the
expression
size of 45 nm increases by 191% when the volumet- nf = 25241T − 64104 with R2 = 099 (10)
ric concentration increases from 1% to 4%. At the same
temperature of 50  C, the electrical conductivity of this valid in the range 273 K ≤ T ≤ 363 K.

700 450
1% Al2O3 10 nm 1% Al2O3 20 nm 1% SiO2 30 nm
Electrical conductivity σnf μS\cm

Electrical conductivity σnf μS\cm

1% Al2O3 45 nm 2% Al2O3 10 nm 400 2% SiO2 30 nm

600 2% Al2O3 20 nm 2% Al2O3 45 nm 3% SiO2 30 nm
3% Al2O3 45 nm 350 4% SiO2 30 nm
3% Al2O3 20 nm
500 5% SiO2 30 nm
4% Al2O3 20 nm 4% Al2O3 45 nm
300 0% SiO2 (PG/W)
0% Al2O3 (PG/W) Linear fit
Linear fit
400 250

300 200

150
200
100
100
50
0 0
270 290 310 330 350 370 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370
Temperature K Temperature K

Fig. 4. Comparison between the electrical conductivity of the Al2 O3 Fig. 5. Electrical conductivity variation with temperature for the SiO2
nanofluid as a function of temperature containing 10, 20 and 45 nm nanofluid in PG/W (60:40) basefluid for particle concentration ranging
particles. from 0 to 6%.

J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 11, 1–8, 2011 5

 Electrical Conductivity Measurements of Nanofluids and Development of New Correlations Konakanchi et al.

Again, similar in trend to the Al2 O3 nanofluid, the elec-

trical conductivity of SiO2 nanofluid also increases with
an increase in the volumetric concentration of particles.

4.4. Zinc Oxide Nanofluid

Figure 6 shows a comparison of the electrical conductiv-

ity between two zinc oxide nanofluids containing 36 and
70 nm average particle sizes. Unlike the previous two
nanofluids, for this nanofluid the electrical conductivity
variation with temperature fits a second order polynomial.
As an example, for 1% ZnO nanofluid of 70 nm particle
size, the electrical conductivity can be expressed as
Fig. 7. Variation of electrical conductivity of three nanofluids with par-
nf = −00012T 2 + 10844T − 20261 with R2 = 099
ticle volumetric concentration at a mean temperature of 50  C.
(11)
valid in the range 273 K ≤ T ≤ 363 K.
From the data it is evident that as the tempera- with concentration. For the Al2 O3 nanofluid with 45 nm
ture increases, the electrical conductivity of zinc oxide average particle size, the polynomial fit is
nanofluid also increases. However, it does not increase in
nf = −029962 + 12242 + 35475 with R2 = 09994
the same linear fashion as where the cases for aluminum
(12)
oxide and silicon dioxide nanoparticles. At higher concen-
valid 1% ≤  ≤ 10%
trations and higher temperature range, where the nonlin-
In Figure 7, the Maxwell Eq. (4) is plotted for the
earity is observed, we repeated these measurements several
Al2 O3 nanofluid using the properties data at 20  C at
times with new nanofluid samples to rule out any errors
which p value is available from the literature.16 The
in measurements. In all cases, the measured conductivi-
Maxwell equation clearly underpredicts the electrical con-
ties where found to be repeatable with differences within
ductivity of nanofluids. Similar observation was made by
±1 percent.
Ganguly et al.13
RESEARCH ARTICLE

4.5. Concentration Dependence

4.6. Development of Correlation
We have presented in Figure 7 the variation of electrical
4.6.1. Guidance from Experimental Data
conductivity of Al2 O3 , ZnO and SiO2 nanofluids with vol-
umetric concentration up to 10% for particle sizes ranging From the experimental results analyzed from
from 10 nm to 70 nm. This variation is shown at a con- Figures 4 through 7, it was established that the electrical
stant nanofluid temperature of 50  C, which was around conductivity of nanofluids were dependent on the parti-
the mean value of the range of temperature over which our cle volumetric concentration, fluid temperature and the
measurements were conducted. A second order polynomial nanoparticle diameter. To establish the influence of each
fits the data well for the variation of electrical conductivity of these parameters on the electrical conductivity, the
following analyses were conducted by varying each of
160 1% ZnO 70 nm
2% ZnO 70 nm
Electrical conductivity σnf μS\cm

140 3% ZnO 70 nm
4% ZnO 70 nm Table I. Material characteristics of nanofluids used in the present
120
1% ZnO 36 nm experiments.
2% ZnO 36 nm
3% ZnO 36 nm
100 4% ZnO 36 nm Parent Particle
0% ZnO (PG/W) Particle Particle nanofluid electrical
2nd order poly. fit
80 size density concentration conductivity16
Manufacturer Material nm g/cc wt% in H2 O S/cm at 20  C
60
Alfa Aesar Al2 O3 20 3.614 30 102 × 10−10
40 Alfa Aesar Al2 O3 45 3.6 50 102 × 10−10
Nanostructured −Al2 O3 10 3.615 20 102 × 10−10
20 and Amorphous
Materials, Inc.
0
270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 Nanostructured SiO2 30 2.41515 25 10−9
and Amorphous
Temperature K
Materials, Inc.
Alfa Aesar ZnO 36 5.614 40 —
Fig. 6. Comparison between the electrical conductivity of ZnO
Alfa Aesar ZnO 70 5.6 50 —
nanofluid as a function of temperature of particle sizes 36 and 70 nm.

6 J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 11, 1–8, 2011

Konakanchi et al. Electrical Conductivity Measurements of Nanofluids and Development of New Correlations

Table II. Regression coefficients of the electrical conductivity correla- conductivity ratio with the particle size, the experimental
tion (Eq. (16)) for different nanofluids.
values of nf /bf  of each nanofluid were plotted against
Regression constants ZnO SiO2 Al2 O3 its nondimensional average particle sizesd0 /d. The par-
ticle size d varied from 10 to 70 nm and d0 , the reference
a1 −8177.324 2928.485 −1772.883
a2 1413.054 23095.615 1128.208 average particle size was adopted to be 100 nm, which
a3 2.2848 419.136 14.425 is generally accepted as the upper limit for the nanoscale
b1 −2.719 −3.373 −2.069 range. From these plots it was determined that variation of
b2 5.594 7.3092 4.578 the electrical conductivity with an average particle size for
b3 −2.584 −3.3397 −2.204
each nanofluid followed a linear relation
c1 11.681 0a 11.456
 
c2 8.383 1a −16.256 nf d
R2 0.98 0.98 0.98 = c1 0 + c2 (15)
Maximum deviation% −15% +10% +20% bf d
Average deviation% −1.74% 3.12% 3.93%
From these individual analyses of the influence of each
a
Since only one particle size was tested for SiO2 nanofluid the diameter effect is parameter, it was concluded that a correlation in the fol-
not included.
lowing format would be appropriate for the electrical
those parameters independently. To make the correlation conductivity.
independent of units, the electrical conductivity nf was   2   
nf T T
nondimensionalized by bf using Eq. (8). = a1  + a2  + a3
b1
2
+ b2 + b3
bf T0 T0
   
4.6.2. Influence of Concentration d
× c1 0 + c2 (16)
d
From Figure 7 and equation Eq. (12) it was observed that
the electrical conductivity nf variation as a function of Next the statistical package LAB fit21 was used to deter-
 followed a polynomial function of second degree at a mine the unknown regression coefficients of Eq. (16)
constant temperature and particle size. This was tested for for different nanofluids from their experimental data. The
each of the nanofluids at several fixed temperatures and regression coefficients from the statistical analysis are tab-
particle sizes of 10, 20, 30, 36, 45 and 70 nm. It was found ulated in Table II.
that the nature of the correlation can be represented the The Eq. (16) with coefficents of Table II has the range

RESEARCH ARTICLE
best way by of validity;
nf
= a 1 2 + a2  + a3 (13) 273 K ≤ T ≤ 363 K; 1% ≤  ≤ 6%; 10 nm ≤ d ≤ 70 nm.
bf
4.7. Comparison of Experimental Values with
4.6.3. Influence of Temperature Correlation
The electrical conductivity nf data of each of nanofluid Comparison of the electrical conductivity values predicted
in Figures 4–6 were nondimensionalized with the base- by the correlation (Eq. (16)) and the experimental val-
fluid electrical conductivity bf and were plotted against ues for the ZnO nanofluid is shown as an example in
the nondimensionalized temperature T /T0 , for fixed con- Figure 8 using the software Matlab.22 The central line
centration and fixed particle sizes. It was observed that the
electrical conductivity ratio nf /bf  followed a second
order polynomial in T /T0 . A careful analysis into this
variation confirmed that although nf was a linear function
of T , bf was nonlinear in T as observed in Figure 3. Due
to a higher rate of increase of bf with T , the best fit cor-
relation for nf /bf  as a function of T /T0  emerged to
be of the form
 2  
nf T T
= b1 + b2 + b3 (14)
bf T0 T0

4.6.4. Influence of Average Particle Size

Figures 4, 6 and 7 had revealed that the electrical con-
ductivity increased as the particle size decreased for fixed Fig. 8. Comparison of the electrical conductivity of ZnO nanofluid val-
temperature and concentration. Therefore, to evaluate this ues calculated from the present correlation, Eq. (16) with the values
inverse functional nature of the variation of the electrical obtained from the experiments.

J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 11, 1–8, 2011 7

 Electrical Conductivity Measurements of Nanofluids and Development of New Correlations
represents a perfect match between the experimental and
correlation values and the two dashed lines are the 95%
prediction bound. Only 2 data points out of about 100 data
points fall out side the 95% prediction bounds on the
upper side. Given a specific concentration, diameter and
temperature of this nanofluid within the curve-fit range,
the correlation ensures 95% confidence that the electrical
conductivity value will be between the lower and upper
prediction limits.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The electrical conductivity of three nanofluids were
measured and found to be functions of volumetric
concentration, temperature and particle diameter. The elec-
trical conductivity exhibited a strong dependence on tem-
perature. For the Al2 O3 nanofluid an increase of 400% in
electrical conductivity was observed for a temperature rise
of about 30%. For the same nanofluid, an increase of about
100–200% in electrical conductivity was observed for a
volumetric concentration increase of 300%. The electrical
conductivity was found to be inversely proportioned to par-
ticle diameter. From experimental data a correlation was
developed (Eq. (16)) that is suitable for the prediction of
the electrical conductivity of these nanofluids. With future
research this correlation can be improved to be valid for
other nanofluids.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Nomenclature
d average particle size, nm
do reference average particle size, 100 nm
T absolute temperature, K
To reference temperature = room temperature,
20  C (293 K)
Greek symbols
nf electrical conductivity of nanofluid, S/cm
bf electrical conductivity of basefluid, S/cm
bfo electrical conductivity of basefluid at reference
temperature, S/cm
Received: 23 September 2010. Accepted: 26 January 2011.
8 J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 11, 1–8, 2011
View publication stats
Konakanchi et al.
p electrical conductivity of particle material, S/cm
 volume fraction of nano particles
References and Notes
1. C. S. Jwo, H. Chang, T. P. Teng, M. J. Kao, and Y. T. Guo,
J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 7, 2161 (2007).
2. W. Yu, D. M. France, D. Singh, E. V. Timofeeva, D. S. Smith, and
J. L. Routbort, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 10, 4824 (2010).
3. R. S. Vajjha and D. K. Das, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 52, 4675
(2009).
4. S. Ramakrishnan and M. W. Rogozinski, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
30, 636 (1997).
5. V. A. Nemchinsky and W. S. Severance, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
39, R423 (2006).
6. R. C. D. Cruz, J. Reinshagen, R. Oberacker, A. M. Segadaes, and
M. J. Hoffmann, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 286, 579 (2005).
7. X. H. Wang and Y. Hirata, Journal of Ceramic Processing Research
1, 64 (2000).
8. M. Hayashi, Environ. Monit. Assess. 96, 119 (2004).
9. J. A. Sorensen and G. E. Glass, Analyt. Chem. 59, 1594 (1987).
10. B. Abedian and K. N. Baker, IEEE 3, 888 (2008).
11. B. Glover, K. W. Whites, H. Hong, A. Mukherjee, and W. E. Billups,
Synthetic Materials 158, 506 (2008).
12. K. F. V. Wong and T. Kurma, Nanotechnology 19, 345702
(2008).
13. S. Ganguly, S. Sikdar, and S. Basu, Powder Technology 196, 326
(2009).
14. Alfa Aesar. Available from: <http://www.alfaaesar.com/>, last
accessed 2007.
15. Nanostructured and Amorphous Materials, Inc. Available from:
<http://www.nanoamor.com/>, last accessed 2010.
16. D. R. Lide, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 84th edn., CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL (2003).
17. Bransonic Tabletop Ultrasonic Cleaners, Branson Ultrasonic Corpo-
ration, Danbury, CT (2010).
18. Experimental Operating and Maintenance Procedures for Electrical
Conductivity of Liquids Unit, Hanna Instruments, Woonsocket, RI
(2009).
19. VWR Model 320 Heater, Available from: <http://www.vwr.com/>,
last accessed 2009.
20. Environmental Test Chamber Model FS 202 chamber 144, Associ-
ated environmental systems, Lawrence, MA (2002).
21. W. P. Silva and C. M. D. P. S. Silva, LAB Fit Curve Fitting
Software (Nonlinear Regression and Treatment of Data Program)
V 7.2.42 (1999–2008), online, available from world wide web:
<www.labfit.net>, date of access: April (2008).
22. Matlab R2008a, MathWorks, Natick, MA (2008).