Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Review

A comprehensive review on graphene nanofluids: Recent research,

development and applications
Emad Sadeghinezhad a,1, Mohammad Mehrali b,1,⇑, R. Saidur c, Mehdi Mehrali b, Sara Tahan Latibari b,
Amir Reza Akhiani b, Hendrik Simon Cornelis Metselaar b,⇑
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Advanced Material Research Centre, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
c
Centre of Research Excellence in Renewable Energy (CoRE-RE), Research Institute, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An overview of experimental results about the heat transfer capabilities of graphene nanofluids is
Received 31 October 2015 reviewed. It shows that a number of publications are available on this issue and only few studies provide
Accepted 3 January 2016 quantitative estimates on a complete set of experimental conditions so far. This research work includes
experimental results about the capabilities of graphene nanofluids and summarizes the recent progress
on preparation and evaluation methods, the ways to enhance the stability of graphene nanofluids and
Keywords: future applications in various fields of energy. Thermo-physical and optical properties of graphene
Graphene
nanofluids along with the heat transfer performance have also been reported in this review paper.
Nanofluids
Synthesis
Various challenges associated with the use of graphene nanofluids in actual applications has also been
Thermal properties reported. It is expected that it could be a quick reference guide to have an overview of the different heat
Heat transfer transfer phenomena in graphene nanofluids and the most essential parameters that influence the
Critical heat flux expected thermal performance of graphene nanofluids.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
2. Preparation method of graphene and graphene based nanofluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
2.1. Potential features of nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
2.2. Preparation of nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
3. Stability of nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
4. Experimental results on thermal properties of nanofluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
4.1. Thermal conductivity measurement of graphene nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
4.1.1. Effective parameters of thermal conductivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
4.1.2. Thermal conductivity of functionalized graphene sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
4.1.3. Measurement techniques for thermal conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
4.1.4. Thermal conductivity models for nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
4.1.5. Effect of different parameters on thermal conductivity of graphene nanofluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
4.2. Measurement of rheological properties of graphene nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
4.3. Electrical conductivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
4.4. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
4.5. Specific heat capacity (cp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
5. Applications of graphene nanofluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
5.1. General overview of forced convective heat transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479

⇑ Corresponding authors. Tel.: +60 3 7967 4451; fax: +60 3 7967 5317.
E-mail addresses: mehrali@um.edu.my (M. Mehrali), h.metselaar@um.edu.my
(H.S.C. Metselaar).
1
The first and second authors have contributed to the work equally.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.01.004
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487 467

5.1.1. Comparison of the convective heat transfer performances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480

5.2. Boiling heat transfer of nanofluid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
5.2.1. Boiling heat transfer-correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
5.2.2. Optical properties of nanoparticles for direct absorption solar thermal energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
5.2.3. Application of heat pipe systems for heat recovery and renewable energy applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
6. Concluding remark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
7. Recommendations for future direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
Authors’ contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485

1. Introduction in designing small heat rejecting devices. Therefore, an innovative

Heat removal and management is a major concern for any tech-
nology that deals with high power and small size. Use of nanofluids
to address these issues has been subject of interest by the many
scientists around the world. In many cases, a nanofluid can be cus-
tom made to fit a particular need and can act as a flexible cooling
method, adapting to the requirements of a specific system. In
essence, nanofluids have the potential to become the world’s first
smart/adaptable coolant [1,2].
Nanofluids, coined by Choi and Eastman [3], are multiphase sys-
tems with a base matrix host fluid and a stable colloidal suspen-
sion of nanometer sized particles. Nanofluid can be produced in a
one step process by creating the host fluid and nanoparticles
together, or created separately and mixed in a two-step process
[4]. Nanofluid have been studied extensively since their creation
due to their often times anomalous and unique thermal transport
characteristics. Nanofluid have also proven to be quite valuable
in terms of the scientific knowledge gained from their study and
their nearly unlimited industrial and commercial applications
[5,6]. Few research works have expanded the science of nanofluids
into a previously unexplored field, that of cryogenic nanofluids.
Cryogenic nanofluids are similar to traditional nanofluids and uti-
lize nanometer sized particles [4,7]. Cryogenic nanofluids received
a great interest due to the fact that they combined the extreme
temperatures inherent to cryogenics with the customizable ther-
mal transport properties of nanofluids. Therefore, this type of
nanofluid have created a potential interest for next generation
cryogenic fluids with enhanced thermophysical properties. Tradi-
tional nanofluids consist of any type of fluid or fluid mixture and
can have one or more variety of nanoparticles, dispersants, etc. act-
ing as the inclusion phase [8,9]. The variety of nanofluids is truly
staggering and indeed, a new nanofluid can be created by simply
mixture of different base fluids or nanoparticle together. Even
slight changes in the creation methodology of nanofluids can lead
to significant changes in the end result [8].
The heat transfer applications directly or indirectly affect peo-
ple’s daily life and require an additional research in order to
improve their efficiencies [10]. Along with an advancement in
manufacturing techniques, the products that have small size, high
heat flux and non-uniform heat flux have occupied a significant
portion in many industries. This trend is expected to continue una-
bated for the coming years and therefore heat rejection solutions
are facing huge demands [11]. From an engineering point of view,
forced convection utilizing liquid coolants in laminar or turbulent
flow regimes are always a key heat transport solution for the
examples stated above [12,13].
However, these techniques usually lead to dramatically higher
pressure loss and increase pumping power [14]. Also, with low
thermal conductivity and high viscosity of common heat transfer
liquids including water, ammonia, ethylene glycol and mineral
oil are the major issues in heat transfer applications. The convec-
tive thermal performance was often inefficient and created barriers
coolant like nanofluid with improved heat transfer properties is
desired [15,16].
In order to increase the fluid heat transfer coefficient, many
efforts have been made on heat transfer fluid, properties of sur-
faces (extension, shape, roughness, etc.) and fluid motion (laminar
or turbulent). Recently, a number of studies have been conducted
on the use of carbon based nanostructures to prepare nanofluids
[17]. The graphene is one of the most studied materials for this
decade [18,19]. Graphene, a single-atom-thick sheet of hexago-
nally arrayed sp2-bonded carbon atoms, which has received much
attention since it was discovered by Novoselov et al. [20] and
attracted a lot of attention because of its unique electrical proper-
ties such as very high carrier mobility. In graphene, carbon atoms
are densely organized in a regular sp2 bonded atomic-scale honey-
comb (hexagonal) pattern and this pattern is a basic structure for
other sp2 carbon bonded nano-structure materials [21] such as car-
bon nanotubes [22] and fullerene [23]. In recent years, a significant
number of studies have been conducted on graphene due to its
unique thermal, electrical, optical, mechanical and other relevant
characteristics [24]. Characterization of graphene provides an
important part of graphene research and involves measurements
based on various spectroscopic and microscopic techniques
[5,25]. Importance of graphene nanoparticles and their benefits
compared to other nanoparticles have been investigated and it
could be stated that the graphene nanoparticles possess the fol-
lowing advantages:
1. Easy to synthesis and longer suspension time (More stable)
2. Larger surface area/volume ratio (1000 times larger)
3. Higher thermal conductivity
4. Lower erosion, corrosion and clogging
5. Lower demand for pumping power
Fig. 1. Number of JCR articles per year, as reported by Journal of Citation Report,
Web of Science (http://apps.webofknowledge.com), from 2009 and updated to
October 2015 retrieved via the keyword ‘‘nanofluid” and ‘‘graphene” in the topic of
the paper.
468 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of some of the applications of nanofluids in (a) heat transfer, (b) defect sensors, (c) anti infection therapy, (d) energy harvesting system, (e)
hyperthermia and (e) cosmetics [26], reproduced with permission from Elsevier (license number 3732920115503).

Table 1
Synthesis of single and few layered graphene.

Single layer Few layers

Micromechanical cleavage of highly
ordered pyrolytic graphite (HOPG)
CVD on metal surfaces
Epitaxial growth on an insulator (SiC)
Intercalation of graphite
Dispersion of graphite in water, NMP
Reduction of single layer graphene
oxide
Chemical reduction of exfoliated
graphene oxide (2–6 layers)
Thermal exfoliation of graphite
oxide (2–7 layers)
Aerosol pyrolysis (2–40 layers)
Arc discharge in presence of H2
(2–4 layers)

Fig. 3. Schematic procedure for Hummers’ method.

6. Reduction in inventory of heat transfer fluid

7. Significant energy saving
Fig. 1 shows publications on this field in the last decade, where
it could be clearly seen that graphene nanofluids are an issue and
becoming very important in engineering world. The high expecta-
tions are presented about their applications in diversified fields.
Different types of nanofluids have been tailored for a broad
range of engineering applications such as in automobiles, coolants,
domestic refrigerators, solar devices, cosmetics, and drug delivery.
A schematic representation of some applications of nanofluids is
shown in Fig. 2.
In the literatures, a number of research works have been done
on thermal and rheological properties, different modes of heat
transfer including boiling one. However, to the best of authors’
knowledge, there is no comprehensive literature on the applica-
tions and challenges of graphene nanofluids. The present review
intended to be a useful guide for researchers who want to have a
quick overview about the main results available in the scientific lit-
erature in the field of graphene nanofluids and a useful references
to find other applications of graphene nanofluid with better perfor-
mances and solutions to overcome these challenges. In particular,
this work deals with the most important experimental results
obtained in the scientific community for the graphene nanofluids.
Moreover, the analysis has been made to identify the influence of
different parameters on the expected results and performance
to evaluate the pros and cons of the application of graphene
 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487 469

Fig. 4. A molecular model of graphene oxide.

Table 2
A comparison of Hummers method to the Staudenmaier method.

Method Oxygen Carbon Water Ash Carbon-to-oxygen

(%) (%) (%) (%) atomic ration
Hummers 47.06 27.97 22.99 1.98 2.25
Staudenmaier 52.112 23.99 22.2 1.90 2.89
Fig. 6. AFM image of GO.

2.2. Preparation of nanofluids

The first and main part of experimental study on nanofluids are

Fig. 5. SEM photographs of the GO (graphene oxide).
nanofluids in this specific field. It is also expected that perfor-
mances of these identified applications can be improved further.
2. Preparation method of graphene and graphene based
nanofluid
Single and few layered graphene have been synthesized by sev-
eral methods and some of these methods are listed in Table 1. The
synthesis procedure can be broadly classified into chemical vapor
deposition (CVD), exfoliation, doping and reduction of graphene
oxide [5].
2.1. Potential features of nanofluids
Graphene nanofluids have special features that are essential for
various engineering applications. These special qualities include:
1. Increased thermal conductivity
2. Enhancement of heat transfer ability
3. Enhanced stability over other nanoparticles (i.e. electrical
properties)
4. Superior lubrication due to the special structure
5. Reduced erosion, corrosion and clogging in systems
preparation method which should be agglomeration free and less
deposition in the long time span in actual applications. Nanofluids
are kind of complex mixture of liquid (base fluid) and solid
(nanoparticle) and need some special essential requirements
including durable stable suspension, negligible agglomeration of
nanoparticles, no chemical change of the base fluid (acidic), etc.
Nanofluids are produced by dispensing nano sized particles in
the base fluid including water, oil, ethylene glycol (EG) and nor-
mally produces with single (e.g. graphene oxide) or two step (e.g.
GNP nanofluid) method of preparation [27].
In 1958, Hummers’ method was developed to produce graphene
oxide as faster, safer and more efficient method [28,29]. Before
development of Hummers’ method, the production of graphene
oxide was hazardous and slow due to the usage of concentrated
nitric and sulfuric acid (see Fig. 3) [5].
The Staudenmaier, Hofmann and Hummers methods intro-
duced the addition of potassium chlorate [8]. However, this
method had more hazards and produced one gram of graphene
oxide to ten grams of potassium chlorate. Hummers and Offeman
[28] created a method as an alternative to the above methods at
the National Lead Company after noting the hazards wastes. Their
approach was involved adding graphite powder to a solution of
concentrated acid. However, they simplified it to just graphite,
concentrated sodium nitrate, sulfuric acid and potassium nitrate.
The schematic diagram of graphite oxide molecular model is
shown in Fig. 4 [30].
They also did not have to use temperatures above 98 °C and
avoided most of the explosive risk of the Staudenmaier–Hoff
man–Hamdi method (see Table 2).
Fig. 5 shows the scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of
the GO (graphene oxide), which display its 2D structure and
thin-layer shape.
Fig. 6 shows the atomic force microscopy (AFM) image of
single-sheet of GO. It can be stated that the minimum measured
height was taken because the wrinkled sheets only come into close
contact with the substrate at few points [31].
The graphene oxide materials was gained through a simplified
Hummers method as described elsewhere [7,32]. Hummers
method is chemically oxidization of graphite flakes by treatment
470 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487
Fig. 7. Reaction scheme for the treatment of graphene using potassium per sulfate [39], reproduced with permission from Elsevier (license number 3732920515981).
Fig. 8. Schematic of preparation of PAMAM/graphene [45], reproduced with
permission from Elsevier (license number 3732920708334).
with various solutions of KMnO4, NaNO3, concentrated H2SO4, and
H2O2, and then washed with HCl and distilled water [31].
Yu et al. [33] presented a chemical method for preparing nano-
fluid containing graphene oxide nanosheets. Nanofluid was
obtained by exfoliation of graphene oxide in anhydrous ethanol.
Their product of nanoparticles was a loose brown powder and dis-
persed in EG without surfactants. Except for the use of ultrasonic
equipment, some other techniques such as functionalized gra-
phene sheets (FGS) was introduced by some other researchers.
Martin-Gallego et al. [34] synthesized the rapid thermal expansion
of graphene oxide at 1000 °C under an inert atmospheric condition.
They produced carbon material with high surface area consisting of
graphene layers with residual carbonyl, hydroxyl and epoxy
groups. Baby and Sundara [35] introduced a method to prepare
the metal oxide decorated graphene dispersed nanofluids. First,
they introduced carboxyl and hydroxyl functional groups on the
surface of graphene under acidic and ultra-sonication treatment.
The functionalized graphene was then used to decorate the CuO
nanoparticles with help of CuCl2 and NaBH4 and NaOH. Baby and
Ramaprabhu [36] and Kole and Dey [37] used dried GO to synthesis
hydrogen exfoliated graphene (HEG) in hydrogen atmosphere at
200 °C. Functionalization of HEG was done by treating as synthe-
sized HEG with acid and ultrasonication.
Wang et al. [38] prepared highly stable graphene (GE)-based
nanofluids by dispersing GO powder into the DW with help of
ultrasonication and adding hydrazine hydrate into the mixture.
This solid product was washed with ethanol and DW and finally
dried at 60 °C in a vacuum oven for 24 h to remove residual sol-
vent. Park et al. [9] and Ghozatloo et al. [39] synthesized graphene
nanosheets. They used CVD to develop the graphene nanosheets on
copper foil by catalytic decomposition in a quarts tube furnace sys-
tem. Then, with the help of reflux system and potassium per sul-
fate, functionalization of graphene was made (see Fig. 7) and
then it was mixed with deionized water (DI). Finally, it was placed
in the ultrasonic bath for 1 h to prepare the graphene nanofluid.
Lee et al. [40] prepared GO–water nanofluids by dispersing GO
nanosheets into the DW as a base fluid. They manufactured GO
nanosheets by the method of chemical vapor deposition (CVD).
Sun et al. [41] dispersed graphite in the polymer solution to pre-
pare the graphene dispersions. They used bath sonicator and left
solution to stand overnight to allow any unstable graphite aggre-
gates to form and then centrifuged. After centrifugation, the top
two-thirds of the dispersion was gently extracted by pipetting.
Akhavan-Zanjani et al. [42], Dhar et al. [43], Park and Bang [44]
and Liu et al. [45] have synthesized GO same as other researcher
with modified Hummers’ method. Dhar et al. [43] prepared a GO
and NaBH4 solution and kept it under stirring for about an hour
for reduction of the functional groups presence. Then, the solution
was filtered and washed with distilled water. The produced gra-
phene was separated and further sulfonated with sulfanilic acid
to make graphene nanosheet suspensions in distilled water. Liu
et al. [45] synthesized graphene and PAMAM/graphene as shown
in Fig. 8.
Li et al. [46] introduced a method to prepare the solvent-free
graphene nanofluid. They have synthesized the GO with modified
Hummers’ method and then with help of ammonia solution
(pH = 10) under sonication and ionic surface modifier, the khaki
precipitate was formed. Then, the precipitate was washed with
deionized water and methanol to remove the excess of ionic sur-
face modifier and dried in the oven. The graphene nanofluid was
synthesized by treating of graphene chlorine salt with potassium
sulfonate salt in methanol and the product was dialyzed and there-
fore, product was dissolved and centrifuged. Finally, the insoluble
particles were discarded and the supernatant liquid was collected
and dried to obtain the solvent-free graphene nanofluid. Mehrali
et al. [7] have synthesized nitrogen-doped graphene with pristine
GO by hydrothermal treatment in a Teflon-lined autoclave with
ammonia. A brief review of different graphene based nanofluid
was available in Table 3.
3. Stability of nanofluids
A homogeneous and stable nanofluid is a great challenge of
nanofluid preparations. Nanoparticles have a tendency of aggrega-
tions due to strong van der Waals interactions between nanoparti-
cles. In general, there are three different techniques utilized by
researchers to improve dispersion behavior of nanofluids and
to minimize particles aggregation which acts against long-term

Table 3
Summary of some prepared graphene nanofluid.
References
Park et al. [6]
Yu et al. [33]
Yu et al. [27]
Yu et al. [47]
Baby and Ramaprabhu [48]
Baby and Sundara [35]
Baby and Ramaprabhu [36]
Yu et al. [49]
Baby and Ramaprabhu [50]
Aravind and Ramaprabhu [51]
Park et al. [52]
Park and Bang [53]
Dhar et al. [43]
Lee et al. [40]
Moghaddam et al. [17]
Dhar et al. [54]
Ghozatloo et al. [39]
Kole and Dey [37]
Theres Baby and Sundara [55]
Akhavan-Zanjani et al. [42]
Zhang et al. [56]
Mehrali et al. [4]
Liu et al. [57]
Park and Bang [44]
Liu et al. [45]
Park and Kim [58]
Li et al. [46]
Mehrali et al. [7]
Hajjar et al. [59]
Esmaeili Faraj et al. [60]
Li et al. [61]
Hadadian et al. [62]
Zubir et al. [63]
Liu et al. [16]
Kazi et al. [64]
Zubir et al. [65]
Asirvatham et al. [66]
Mahmudul Haque et al. [67]
Li Tong et al. [68]
Fan et al. [69]
Park et al. [70]
Ghozatloo et al. [71]
Ma et al. [72]
Shende and Sundara [73]
E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487 471
Base fluid Material Synthesis method Loading
Distilled water Graphene and graphene-oxide Modified Hummers method 0.001 vol%
nanosheets
Ethylene glycol Graphene oxide nanosheets Modified Hummers method 1–5 vol%
Ethylene glycol Graphene oxide nanosheets Modified Hummers method 0.01–11.03 wt%
Ethylene glycol Nanofluids containing graphene oxide Modified Hummers method 0.01–0.05 vol%
nanosheets
Ethylene glycol Graphene based nanofluids Modified Hummers method 0.005–0.056 vol%
+ distilled water
Ethylene glycol Metal oxide decorated graphene Copper oxide decorated graphene 0.005–0.056 vol%
+ deionized water and dispersed nanofluids
Ethylene glycol Graphene dispersed nanofluids Hydrogen exfoliated graphene (HEG) 0.005–0.05 vol%
Deionized water 0.05–0.08 vol%
Ethylene glycol Nanofluids containing graphene Modified Hummers method 0.01–11.03 wt%
nanosheets
Deionized water and Silver nanoparticles decorated graphene Modified Hummers 0.005–0.056 vol%
Method to prepare the GO
Ethylene glycol Graphene nanosheets based nanofluids Modified Hummers method 0.008–0.138 vol%
Deionized water 0.008–0.138 vol%
Distilled water Grapheme oxide nanofluid Modified Hummers method 0.0001 vol%
Distilled water Grapheme oxide nanofluid Modified Hummers method 0.0001 vol%
Distilled water Polydispersed grapheme nanosheet Modified Hummers 0.5 wt%
suspensions Method and then synthesized the
material
Distilled water Grapheme oxide/water nanofluid Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) 0.01 vol%
Glycerol Graphene–glycerol nanofluids Modified Hummers Method Mass fractions
(0.0025–0.0200)
Distilled water Polydispersed Modified Hummers 0.05–0.2 vol%
Graphene nanofluids Method and then synthesized the
material
Distilled water Functionalized grapheme nanofluid Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) 0.01–0.05 wt%
70 vol% ethylene glycol Grapheme based nanofluids Modified Hummers method and then 0.395 vol%
+ 30 vol% distilled synthesized the material
water
Deionized water Silver nanoparticle decorated Modified Hummers method and then 0.005–0.04 vol%
multiwalled carbon nanotubes- synthesized the material
graphene nanofluid
Distilled water Graphene–water nanofluid Modified Hummers method 0.005–0.02 vol%
Distilled water Graphene oxide nanosheets nanofluid Supplied by manufacturer 0.0001–0.0002 wt%
Distilled water Graphene nanoplatelets nanofluid Supplied by manufacturer 0.025–0.1 wt%
Distilled water Graphene-dispersed nanofluids Modified Hummers method Mass fractions (0.03–
0.06)
Distilled water Graphene-dispersed nanofluids Modified Hummers method 0.01 vol%
Distilled water Functionalized pristine graphene/metal Modified Hummers method and then 1–3 G (generation)
nanoparticle hybrid nanofluid synthesized the material
Distilled water Graphene nanofluids Supplied by manufacturer and after 0.001–0.01 vol%
that did oxidation by acid
Water + different Solvent-free graphene nanofluid Modified Hummers method and then 10 mg/ml
surfactant synthesized the material
Distilled water Nitrogen-doped grapheme nanofluid Modified Hummers method and then 0.01–0.06 wt%
+ different surfactant synthesized the material
Deionized water Graphene oxide nanofluids Modified Hummers method 0.05–0.25 wt%
Distilled water Exfoliated graphene oxide nanofluid Modified Hummers method and then 0.005–0.025 wt%
synthesized the material
Distilled water Water-based SiO2-coated graphene Modified Hummers method and then 0.1 wt%
nanofluid synthesized the material
Distilled water Graphene oxide-based nanofluids Modified Hummers method and then Mass fractions
synthesized the material (0.0001–0.0006)
Distilled water Graphene oxide and its hybrid Modified Hummers method and then 0.05 wt%
complexes nanofluid synthesized the material
[HMIM]BF4 Graphene/ionic liquid nanofluid Supplied by manufacturer 0.0005–0.01 wt%
Distilled water Graphene oxide/graphene nanoplatelets Modified Hummers method 0.0125–0.075 wt%
Distilled water Graphene oxide and its hybrid Modified Hummers method 0.05 wt%
complexes nanofluid
Acetone Graphene–acetone nanofluids Supplied by manufacturer 0.05–0.09 vol%
DW + surfactant MWCNTs and graphene nanopowder Supplied by manufacturer Mass ratios were 1/3,
3/1, 1/1, 1/2 and 2/1
DI Silver oxide (SO) and graphene oxide Supplied by manufacturer 0.01–0.1 wt%
(GO)
DW Graphene oxide nanosheets (GONs) Supplied by manufacturer 0.005–0.1 wt%
DW Carbon nanotubes and graphene Supplied by manufacturer 0.1 vol%
DW Graphene nanofluids CVD-grown graphene 0.05–0.1 wt%
Silicone oil Functionalized graphene nanosheets Modified Hummers method and then 0.0–0.07 wt%
nanofluid synthesized the material
Ethylene glycol Nitrogen doped graphene-MNT GO was prepared by Hummers’ 0.005–0.03 vol%
Deionized water nanofluid method and WNTs were prepared by 0.005–0.02 vol%
CVD
472 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487
stability. However, clustering and aggregation have been reported
as features increasing thermal conductivity of nanofluids. There-
fore, in preparation, both issues should be taken into account to
make a balance between stability and thermal conductivity of a
nanofluid [4,15,65].
There are some methods that recommended to obtain stable
nanofluids, including physical or chemical treatment (i.e. Addition
of surfactant, pH control, Ultrasonic agitation (vibration), etc.). Sta-
bility of nanofluid is directly related to its electro-kinetic proper-
ties. Therefore, pH control of them can increase stability due to
strong repulsive forces. In general, two types of behavior including
attraction and rejection occurs among nanoparticles. These forces
are van der Waals and electrostatic forces and can be controlled
by means of pH. After preparation of nanofluids, agglomeration
might occur over the time, which results in fast sedimentation of
nanoparticles due to downward body force from cumulative
weight. Based on the literature [41,74,75], the sonication time is
an important parameter for dispersing the aggregated nanoparti-
cles. As it was mentioned before, all three methods might be used
for one specific sample during synthesis and preparation. However,
it is difficult to make stable nanofluid and rare to maintain
nanofluids synthesized by the traditional methods in a homoge-
neous stable state for more than 24 h [15].
They are different types of surfactant including Gum Arabic
(GA), Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), Hexadecyltrimethylammo-
nium bromide (CTAB), Sodium octanoate (SOCT), Dodecyl
trimethylammonium bromide (DTAB), Hexadecyltrimethylammo
niumbromide (HCTAB), Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), Oleic acid, Tri-
ton X-100, etc., which could help to modify hydrophobic materials
to enable dispersion in an aqueous solution. Otherwise sedimenta-
tion, clogging and aggregation happen and cause declining of nano-
fluid characteristics including viscosity, thermal conductivity and
increasing specific heat [7,41,74,75].
Nanofluids properties including thermal conductivity, nanopar-
ticle size, a dispersion stability, viscosity, etc. should be measured
and analyzed for different applications. Dispersion stability of
nanofluid could be estimated by measuring the exact amount of
suspended and settled nanoparticles in the base fluid over time.
Among limited number of studies on stability of nanofluids, evalu-
ation of them has been considered by some researchers and six dif-
ferent methods were utilized which can be listed as below:
1. UV–Vis spectrophotometer
2. Zeta potential test
3. Sedimentation photograph capturing
4. TEM (Transmission Electron Microscopy) and SEM (Scanning
Electron Microscopy)
5. Sedimentation balance method
6. 3x method
7. Dispersion analyzer centrifuge
8. Thermal conductivity measurement
A summary of some research work that work on the stability of
nanofluid is given in Table 4.
Although, a few limited methods were mentioned in the litera-
tures that used to improve stability of graphene nanofluids. The
researchers reported that these methods could only made a stable
graphene nanofluids for only several days or months and long-
term stability of nanofluids are not available so far. Therefore, more
investigation are required for changing the surface properties of
suspended nanoparticles and suppressing formation of nanoparti-
cle cluster to obtain stable and homogeneous suspension. Addi-
tionally, it should be noted that at present no uniform standard
methods for examining the stability of graphene nanofluids and
thus it is difficult to compare the stability of different types of gra-
phene nanofluids that were reported by different researchers.
4. Experimental results on thermal properties of nanofluid
4.1. Thermal conductivity measurement of graphene nanofluids
Thermophysical properties are an essential parameters to the
understanding the convective heat transfer behavior of nanofluids.
Experimental determination of their thermophysical properties is a
major part of the overall scope of this project. Properties of interest
are the density, specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and
viscosity. Thermal conductivity is the ability of a material to trans-
port energy in the form of heat (energetic vibrations). For the case
of solid, it is the direct energy exchange through atomic level, lat-
tice vibrations and free electron diffusion, whereas for fluids-gases,
it takes the form of direct molecular contact and molecular diffu-
sion. It is a fundamental and natural property of any physical mate-
rial, and is defined as energetic power per unit temperature and
length, which the thermal conductivity is acting. Additionally,
the thermal conductivity is based upon the physical structure of
the each material and its current state. Thermal conductivity is
one of the important thermal transport characteristics of a mate-
rial, which plays an important role in many design problems.
Therefore, a great deal of effort has gone into characterizing and
measuring thermal conductivity over the last few centuries
[7,41,74,75].
4.1.1. Effective parameters of thermal conductivity
Based on literature study it has been found that thermal con-
ductivity of nanofluids is influenced by nanoparticle size, temper-
ature, concentration, particle motions and so on. In this section,
some of these parameters have been reviewed. Nanoparticle can
be considered as the key element of nanofluid, which plays major
role in this case. Situation of nanoparticles either during synthesis
or after that can be highly effective on different thermo-physical
properties of it [7].
1. Morphology
In material science, morphology would be defined as study of
shape, size, texture and phase distribution of physical objects.
The study of nanoparticles on the effect of size has been inves-
tigated by some researchers and they have declared strong
effect of nanoparticle size on thermal conductivity of nanofluid.
Other characteristics of nanoparticle is specific surface area
(SSA), which is supposed to be taken into account by research-
ers during preparation since it has influence on the thermal
conductivity of nanofluid and can be defined by Eq. (1):
Particle surface area
SSA ¼ ð1Þ
Particle Volume
2. Temperature
In recent researches, it has been found that temperature and
thermal conductivity have direct relationship, which means
when temperature increases, thermal conductivity of nanofluid
rises as well.
3. Concentration
The other key issue that can highly affect thermal conductivity
of nanofluid is concentration of nanoparticles inside the base-
fluid. In different reports, concentration has been stated in both
types including volume as well as weight percentage.
4. Motion
Three types of motion have been vastly discussed in literatures
namely:
 Thermo-phoretic motion (Motion caused by temperature
gradient)
 Brownian motion (force)
 Osmophoretic motion (Motion in concentration gradient)
 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487 473

Table 4
Summary of different stability of nanofluid research.

Investigator Stability test method Duration Surfactant

Yu et al. [33] Constant of thermal conductivity Almost constant within 7 days N/A
Park et al. [52] Zeta potential test N/A Changing pH
Dhar et al. [43] Sedimentation photograph capturing Shelf-life stability over 6 months N/A
Sun et al. [41] Sedimentation photograph capturing N/A Polymers P19 and P20
and UV–Vis spectrophotometer
Lee et al. [40] Zeta potential test N/A Changing pH
Ghozatloo et al. [39] Sedimentation photograph capturing Almost constant within 7 days N/A
and constant of thermal conductivity
Kole and Dey [37] Constant of thermal conductivity Constant for 150 days (5 months) N/A
Li et al. [61] Sedimentation photograph capturing Almost constant within 7 days N/A
and UV–Vis spectrophotometer
Hadadian et al. [62] Sedimentation photograph capturing, A period of 60 days N/A
UV–Vis spectrophotometer and Zeta
potential test
Hajjar et al. [59] Sedimentation photograph capturing N/A N/A
Mehrali et al. [7] Sedimentation photograph capturing, Constant for 180 days (6 months) Triton X-100
UV–Vis spectrophotometer and Zeta
potential test
Li et al. [46] Sedimentation photograph capturing N/A N/A
Park and Kim [58] Sedimentation photograph capturing 24 h N/A
Mehrali et al. [4] Sedimentation photograph capturing, 600 h N/A
UV–Vis spectrophotometer and Zeta
potential test
Akhavan-Zanjani et al. [42] UV–Vis spectrophotometer 1 week PVA
Asirvatham et al. [66] Sedimentation photograph capturing 7 days N/A
Zubir et al. [65] Zeta potential test and sedimentation N/A Changing pH and tannic acid
photograph capturing
Kazi et al. [64] Sedimentation photograph capturing 2 months Changing pH
Mahmudul Haque et al. [67] Sedimentation photograph capturing 4 days SDBS
Ma et al. [72] Sedimentation photograph capturing 256 h N/A
and UV–Vis spectrophotometer

The motion of nanoparticles caused by temperature gradient, 7. Clustering

which is called Thermo-phoretic motion. However, most effec-
tive type of motion which has been investigated by different
researchers and has stated as very effective reason in increasing
thermal conductivity of nanofluids is called Brownian motion.
The osmophoretic motion which can be defined as motion in
concentration gradient and vary by concentration of particles.
5. Thermal conductivity of nanoparticles
For a specific basefluid, thermal conductivity of particles would
greatly influence thermal conductivity of one sample compar-
ing the other one while both possess same basefluid. In this
case, higher thermal conductivity of particles is expected to
lead in higher thermal conductivity of nanofluid. This fact has
been proved by different researches and experimental
investigation.
6. Thermal conductivity of base-fluid
As it was mentioned earlier, motion of particles especially
Brownian motion can affect thermal conductivity of nanofluids.
One noticeable parameter, which is in direct relationship with
motion of particles, is viscosity of basefluid. Effect of electric
double layer around nanoparticles could be considered as one
influential parameter on thermal conductivity of nanofluids,
depending on basefluid. Table 5 presents thermo-physical prop-
erties, molecular diameter and freezing point temperature of
common heat transfer base fluids, which are important in nano-
fluid heat transfer phenomena.
Other feature effecting thermal conductivity of nanofluids,
which always can be taken into account, is clustering. It is inter-
esting to note that in different models presented by different
researches, regarding thermal conductivity of nanofluids.
Authors found that clustering influences thermal conductivity
of nanofluids.
8. Acidity (pH)
Literature survey reveals that not enough research has been
carried out on the impact of pH of a base fluid on thermal con-
ductivity of nanofluid.
9. Additives
Additives are utilized to keep nanoparticles in suspension and
prevent them from agglomeration. Thus, they are expected to
cause thermal conductivity enhancement of nanofluids. The
additive makes an insulation layer around nanoparticles and
could help them to be dispersed in the base fluid but perfor-
mances might be deteriorated at high temperature.
4.1.2. Thermal conductivity of functionalized graphene sheet
Huge research works have been devoted to the exploration of
the thermal properties of graphene nanofluids [77]. Few investiga-
tions have been conducted on the graphene derivatives, including
graphene oxide (GO). It possesses the characteristics of hydroxyl
(–OH) and epoxy (–O–) groups on the basal plane while carboxyl
(–COOH) and carbonyl (–COH) groups in sheet edges [77].

Table 5
Selected base fluid properties affecting nanofluid heat transfer at 20 °C with desired tendency for better enhancement [76].

Fluid type Pr cp (J/kg K) q (kg/m3) k (W/m K) l (N s/m2) df (nm) Tfr (K)
Desired tendency " # # " # # #
Water 7.00 4184 998 0.599 0.10  103 0.38 273
EG (ethylene glycol) 209 2383 1117 0.250 0.22  101 0.56 261
R-134a 3.51 1405 1125 0.083 0.21  103 0.64 247
EO (engine oil) 10,863 1881 888 0.145 0.84 1.17 –
474 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487
Fig. 9. Relative thermal conductivity of the bilayer GS with different functional
groups with respect to coverage [77], reproduced with permission from Elsevier
(license number 3732920890469).
Fig. 9 shows the relative thermal conductivity of the functionalized
bilayer graphene sheet (GS). Zhang et al. [77] showed that the rel-
ative thermal conductivity of all the functionalized GS is smaller
than pristine graphene. They indicated that the various functional
groups leads to the reduction of the thermal conductivity and the
GH has the highest relative thermal conductivity followed by the
GOH, GMix and GO. The reduction in effective thermal conductivity
induced by the functional groups and it has been attributed to the
mass effect as well as the structural deformation. For the GH and
GOH, each hydrogen atom and hydroxyl group are connected to
one carbon atom in the GS. However, the hydroxyl group is heavier
than hydrogen atom, leading to more mass effects on the phonon
and thus a smaller thermal conductivity [78].
4.1.3. Measurement techniques for thermal conductivity
Nanofluids have attracted a vast attention due to increment in
thermal conductivity compared to the base fluid. Measurement
of these thermophysical properties was a challenge for a long time
since different methods and techniques presented different results.
Thus, the method which is going to be used would be significant to
lower the measurement error and uncertainty as much as possible.
In this section, major thermal conductivity and the measurement
methods from different literatures have been described briefly
and the following methods are going to be investigated:
1. Transient hot-wire techniques
2. Thermal constants analyzer techniques
3. Steady-state parallel-plate method
4. Cylindrical cell method
5. Temperature oscillation technique
6. 3x method
7. Thermal comparator method
8. Laser Flash technique (flash method)
In case of liquids, convection should be avoided during mea-
surements and since fluids do not have definite shape, size and
cross sectional area and it would be more difficult to calculate ther-
mal conductivity. Thus, this measurement should take place in a
very short time. Even the situation is worse in case of nanofluids,
whereas suspended nanoparticles may cause a major problem.
4.1.4. Thermal conductivity models for nanofluids
Different types of models have developed to predict the thermal
conduction behavior of nanofluids [79]. There are five groups of
mechanism (based on k models) for thermal conductivity measure-
ment and could be explained by (i) classical effective medium the-
ory; (ii) nanoscale layer; (iii) Brownian motion; (iv) agglomeration;
and (v) other mechanisms. Each group of mechanism based on k
models has been further broken into several subcategories [79].
There are several standard thermal conductivity models for
composites including the Hamilton–Crosser (HC) model and Max-
well model and the weakness of these traditional models in pre-
dicting the thermal conductivities of nanofluids, which led to the
proposition of various new mechanisms. Nanofluids are expected
to have a high thermal conductivity that obeys the effective med-
ium theory developed by Maxwell [80]. Maxwell’s model for well
dispersed particles culminates in a simple equation giving the ratio
of the nanofluid thermal conductivity knf to the thermal conductiv-
ity of the based fluid kbf.
It is noticeable that, once the nanoparticle material and the base
fluid are assigned, the effective thermal conductivity of the nano-
fluid is dependent on temperature and concentration ðuÞ. More-
over, Dk=k% depends marginally on the solid–liquid combination
because most of the experimental data used to derive Eq. (2) are
related to the nanofluids with suspended nanoparticle. Conse-
quently, it is apparent that the thermal conductivity and thickness
of interfacial layer have important effects on the enhanced thermal
conductivity of nanofluids. The typical theoretical models have
been developed for thermal conductivity of nanoparticles sus-
pended in the base fluids are considering only thermal conductiv-
ities of the base fluid, nanoparticles and volume fraction of
particles while particle size, shape, distribution and the motion
of dispersed particles are having significant impacts on thermal
conductivity enhancement. Therefore, the experimental results
could not be compared with the correlated values of theoretical
models. Many researchers have accomplished different benchmark
research on the thermal conductivity of nanofluids and the results
indicated that the experimental data were in good agreement with
the data obtained from Nan’s model. According to Nan’s model, the
results in thermal conductivity of the nanofluid is expressed by Eq.
(2) [4].
3 þ /½2b11 ð1  L11 Þ þ b33 ð1  L33 Þ
knf ¼ kbf ð2Þ
3  /ð2b11 L11 þ b33 L33 Þ
where Lii and / are the geometrical factor and the volume fraction
of particles, respectively. bii is defined as:
kp  kbf
bii ¼ ð3Þ
kbf þ Lii ðkp  kbf Þ
Table 6 shows some classical effective medium theory based
models.
4.1.5. Effect of different parameters on thermal conductivity of
graphene nanofluid
In the past decades, many experimental studies on the thermal
conductivity of graphene nanofluids have been reported. The effec-
tive thermal conductivities of graphene nanofluids has been exper-
imentally and numerically investigated with different
concentrations, working temperature, and base fluid. Working
fluid temperature plays an essential role in enhancing the effective
thermal conductivity of graphene nanofluids. In the other hand,
nanofluids may be used under various temperatures, a number of
researches were performed to investigate the effect of temperature
on the effective thermal conductivity of graphene nanofluids.
Yu et al. [33] summarized the thermal conductivity enhance-
ments of graphene oxide nanosheets (GON-EG nanofluid) as a
function of loading (5.0 vol%), and compared it with the data of
some EG based nanofluids containing metallic oxide (i.e. CuO,
ZnO, SiO2, Al2O3 and TiO2) and carbon nanotube (CNT), as shown
 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487 475

Table 6
A list of the most frequently used models for evaluating effective thermal conductivity.

Model Expressions ðkeff =kbf Þ Remarks

Maxwell [80] knp þ2kbf þ2ðknp kbf Þ/ Relates the thermal conductivity of spherical particle, base fluid and solid
knp þ2kbf ðknp kbf Þ/
volume fraction
Hamilton and knp þðn1Þkbf ðn1Þðkbf knp Þ/ For non-spherical particles, knp/kbf > 100, n is an empirical shape factor
knp þðn1Þkbf þðkbf knp Þ/
Crosser [81] (n = 3/w, w is the sphericity)

 !2 " ! ! ! #
Jeffrey [82] 3/
knp
1
knp
1
knp
1
knp
1
knp
þ2
High order terms represent pair interactions of randomly dispersed
kbf kbf kbf kbf kbf
1þ knp þ 3/2 knp  1 þ 14 knp þ 16
3
knp k þ  particles
kbf
þ2 kbf
þ2 kbf
þ2 kbf
þ2 2 knp þ3

 bf

Davis [83] 3
knp
1 :½/þf /2 þOð/3 Þ
High order terms represent pair interactions of randomly dispersed
1þ


kbf
spheres, f = 2.5&0.5 for knp/kbf = 10 and 1
knp knp
kbf
þ2  kbf
1 /

Wasp et al. [84] knp þ2kbf 2ðkbf knp Þ/ Special case of Hamilton and Crosser’s model with w = 1
knp 2kbf þðkbf knp Þ/
pffiffiffiffi
Bruggeman [85] k
D D = [(3/  1)2(knp/kbf)2 + (2  3/)2 + 2(2 + 9/  9/2)(knp/kbf)]
4 ½ð3/  1Þ knp þ ð2  3/Þ þ 14
1
bf

Fig. 10. Thermal conductivity enhancement ratios of EG based nanofluids as a
function of loading [86], reproduced with permission from SciELO.
in Fig. 10. The results show that there is a linear relationship
between the enhancement ratios and concentrations of nanofluid
and the enhancement ratios of EG based nanofluids metallic oxide,
are from 17% to 27%.
Baby and Ramaprabhu [36] studied on the conventional theo-
retical models on thermal conductivity of f-HEG dispersed nano-
fluid. Their studies were based on the Hamilton and Crosser
modified Maxwell’s model by taking into consideration of geome-
try of particles. They found that with the enhancement in the tem-
perature, the thermal conductivity is going away from the
correlated values and same results have found by Sen Gupta
et al. [87]. Additionally, in the EG based nanofluids, the calculated
value is less than the correlated value. They suggested that there
are other mechanisms including nanoparticles size, shape, the dis-
tribution and the motion of dispersed nanoparticles contribute to
the thermal conductivity of EG based f-HEG dispersed nanofluids,
and similar results are found in Mehrali et al. [7]. Some researchers
[7,37,49] investigated on the Nan’s model on the thermal conduc-
tivity of graphene nanofluid. They found that the predicted thermal
conductivity of nanofluid with Eq. (2) is sensitive to the small
change of thermal conductivity of the additive for 2D flake materi-
als including graphene nanosheets and NDG. They show that the
thermal conductivity of these types of materials that estimated
from the effective-medium approximation (Eq. (2)) is difficult.
Table 7 summarizes the results of thermal conductivity measure-
ment from different researchers on graphene nanofluids.
Fig. 11 presents the thermal conductivity enhancement of DW,
pure EG and mixture of EG and DW (30:70) based graphene
nanofluids reported by others researchers [36,37,87]. It can be seen
that the results are close due to the chemically reduced graphene–
water nanofluids.
Fig. 12 shows the comparison for the enhancement of thermal
conductivity of graphene with other nanofluids at temperature
30 °C. It can be noted that the rate of thermal conductivity
enhancement with graphene and CNT concentration are compara-
ble and is higher than the metallic nanofluids.
Fig. 13 shows the thermal conductivity of the graphene, gra-
phene/SiO2 and graphene/SiO2-SDBS nanofluids and is linearly
increased with nanofluid temperature. Li et al. [61] investigated
on the effect of SiO2 on graphene nanofluid and found that the
low thermal conductivity of the graphene nanofluid is attributed
to its high degree of instability.
Xie et al. [90] studied on the effect of diamond, copper, CNT and
graphene nanoparticle dispersed in EG on thermal conductivity.
The results shown that all the nanofluids have noticeable higher
thermal conductivities than the base fluid and the graphene nano-
fluid with a volume fraction of 5, the thermal conductivity can be
enhanced by more than 60% (see Fig. 14).
Taha-Tijerina et al. [91] investigated the thermal conductivity of
hexagonal boron nitride and graphene dispersed in mineral oil and
the results are available in Fig. 15.
The research investigation reported different experimental phe-
nomenon and theoretical analysis result, thus, there is no compres-
sive conclusion on thermal conductivity enhancement of graphene
nanofluids. Therefore, more experimental and theoretical research
works are needed in the future. Additionally, it could be noted is
that most of the models were developed for spherical or elongated
nanoparticles and new suitable models for different types of
nanoparticles should developed.
4.2. Measurement of rheological properties of graphene nanofluids
The rheological behavior of nanofluids are an important factor
in designing dynamic system for heat transfer applications of
nanofluids as well as the pressure drop and the resulting of pump-
ing power is dependent on this factor [92]. In comparison with the
works carried out on thermal conductivity of graphene nanofluids,
only a few studies have been reported on the rheological behavior
and studied in depth for graphene nanofluids. Most of the research
work on the viscosity of nanofluid showed that the apparent vis-
cosity decreased with increasing temperature. In order to the study
the flow behavior of the fluids, some classical models including
power Bingham plastic model, law model and Herschel–Bulkley
model are used [92,93]. The rheological models considered are
given in Table 8.
As mentioned earlier, researchers have started work on gra-
phene nanofluid since 2009, and surprisingly not so many studies
have been solely focused on rheological properties. Yang et al. [88]
476 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487

Table 7
Summary of experimental results on thermal conductivity of graphene nanofluids.

Investigator Particle type Base Particle concentration Measurement Maximum Notes

fluid technique enhancement
Yu et al. [33] GON EG 1–5 vol% THW method 10.5–61% 10–60 °C
Baby and Ramaprabhu [48] Exfoliated graphene based nanofluids DW 0.005–0.056 vol% THW method 14–64% 25–50 °C
EG 4–7%
Martin-Gallego et al. [34] Functionalized graphene sheets [FGS] DW 0.2–1 wt% THW method 10–70% 30–60 °C
Baby and Sundara [35] Copper oxide decorated graphene DW 0.005–0.05 wt% THW method 23–90% 25–50 °C
(CuO/HEG) EG 0.01–0.07 wt% 17–23%
Baby and Ramaprabhu [36] Hydrogen exfoliated graphene (HEG) DI 0.005–0.05 wt% THW method 10–75% 25–50 °C
EG 0.05–0.08 wt% 1–5%
Yu et al. [49] GON EG 2–5 wt% THW method Up to 86% 10–60 °C
Baby and Ramaprabhu [50] Silver nanoparticles decorated DI 0.005–0.05 wt% THW method 7–86% 25–70 °C
graphene EG 0.01–0.07 wt% 3–14%
Aravind and Ramaprabhu [51] Alkaline graphite oxide DI 0.008–0.138 vol% THW method 2.4–17% 25 °C
EG 2.4–6.5%
Sun et al. [41] Few-layer graphene Polymer 0.55–1 vol% THW method 18–25% 10–60 °C
Dhar et al. [54] Poly-dispersed graphene DW 0.05–0.2 vol% THW method 3–30% 25–50 °C
and modelling
Ghozatloo et al. [39] Functionalized Graphene DW 0.01–0.05 wt% THW method 3.8–17% 10–50 °C
Kole and Dey [37] Functionalized graphene nano-sheets DW + EG 0.041–0.395 vol% THW method Up to 15% 10–70 °C
(GnS)
Sen Gupta et al. [87] GnS DW 0.05–0.2 vol% THW method Up to 27% 30–50 °C
Yang et al. [88] Nano-diamond coated with graphene Silicon 0.35–5.2 vol% Flash method Up to 10% Room
shell (ND-50) oil Temprature
Theres Baby and Sundara [55] Decorated multiwalled carbon DW 0.005–0.04 vol% THW method 1–20% 25–50 °C
nanotubes-graphene mixture
(MWNT-HEG hybrid)
Li et al. [61] SiO2-coated graphene DW 0.1 wt% THW method Up to 20% 15–65 °C
Hajjar et al. [59] Graphite oxide (GO) DI 0.05–0.25 wt% THW method 14.75–47.57% 10–40 °C
Mehrali et al. [7] Nitrogen-doped graphene (NDG) DW 0.01–0.06 wt% THW method 22.15–36.78% 15–40 °C
Mehrali et al. [4] Graphene nanoplatelets (GNP) with 3 DW 0.025–0.1 wt% THW method Up to 27.64% 15–40 °C
specific surface area of (300, 500 and
750 m2/g)
Park and Kim [58] Graphenes, grades M-5 and M-15 DW 0.001–0.01 vol% THW method 6.24–14% 25 °C
Liu et al. [57] Graphene DW 0.01–0.03 wt% THW method 3–22.9% 25–200 °C
Akhavan-Zanjani et al. [42] Graphene DW 0.005–0.02 wt% THW method 6.04–10.3% 25–45 °C
Zubir et al. [63] Reduced graphene oxide (RGO), RGO- DW 0.05 wt% THW method 15–17% 30 °C
CNT, RGO-CNF, RGO-GNP
Zubir et al. [65] Reduced graphene oxide (RGO), RGO- DW 0.05 wt% THW method 2–30% 25–40 °C
CNT, RGO-CNF, RGO-GNP
Mahmudul Haque et al. [67] MWCNT and graphene DW Mass ratios were 1/3, 3/1, LAMBDA system Up to 5.546% 20–40 °C
1/1, 1/2 and 2/1
Lee and Rhee [89] Graphene nanoplatelets EG 0.5–4 vol% LAMBDA system Up to 32% 10–90 °C
Ma et al. [72] Functionalized graphene nanosheets Silicon 0.01–0.07 wt% THW method Up to 18.9% 20–60 °C
oil
Shende and Sundara [73] Nitrogen doped graphene-MNT EG 0.005–0.03 vol% Hot Disk thermal Up to 15.1% 25–50 °C
DI 0.005–0.02 vol% analyzer Up to 17.7%

were the first researcher who did research on graphene nanofluid.
They used nano-diamond coated with graphene shell (ND-50) and
prepared ND-50 nanofluid in the silicone oil with two step method.
They studied with different temperature range (20–80 °C) and con-
centration range of 0.35–5.2 vol% and ND-50 nanofluid displays a
shear-thinning behavior. In 2013, Dhar et al. [43] studied on vis-
cosity of graphene nanosheets and the results were compared with
CNT and Alumina nanoparticles (see Fig. 16).
Further, they investigated experimentally and numerically on
viscosity of graphene nanosheets with different concentration
(0.01–0.5 vol%) and temperatures (25–70 °C). They shown that
the viscosity of graphene nanofluid is similar to trend of Einstein’s
formulation [43].
Moghaddam et al. [17] studied on the rheological properties of
graphene–glycerol nanofluids at different mass fractions (0.0025–
0.0200) and temperatures (20–60 °C). They showed that this nano-
fluid has the shear thinning behavior and 401.49% enhancement in
viscosity of glycerol was achieved by loading of 2% graphene
nanosheets at shear rate 6.32 s1 and 20 °C. Viscosity of function-
alized graphene–ethylene glycol + DW was investigated by Kole
and Dey [37]. Functionalized graphene nanofluid showed a non-
Newtonian behavior and viscosity of the nanofluid enhanced
nearly by 100% in comparison to basefluid at a loading of
0.395 vol%. Mehrali et al. [7] measured the viscosity of nitrogen-
doped graphene nanofluid and they found that the viscosity
reduced with the raising of temperature and decreased between
51.19% and 51.50%. The rheological property of the solvent-free
graphene nanofluid (G-PEGs) was measured by Li et al. [46] and
the viscosity found to be decreased from 67.6 Pa s (20 °C) to
16.99 Pa s (70 °C).
Park and Kim [58] studied on the viscosity of the graphene M-5
and M-15 nanofluids at room temperature (25 °C). Their results
showed that the rate of viscosity increase of the graphene M-15
nanofluid was higher than that of the graphene M-5 nanofluid.
Moreover, the viscosity of graphene M-15 nanofluid increased
15.65% at 0.01 vol%. Graphene-dispersed ionanofluids was investi-
gated by Liu et al. [57] and found that the viscosity of the 0.03 wt%
decreased from 180.4 to 33.7 cp as the temperature was increased
from 30 to 90 °C, and accordingly decreased from 174.8 to 30.2 cp
at 0.06 wt%. Graphene nanoplatelets (GNP) nanofluid showed a
shear thinning behavior and viscosity of GNP nanofluids was
reduced by 44% with increasing of temperature to 60 °C [4]. The
viscosity of graphene–water nanofluid was studied by Akhavan-
Zanjani et al. [42]. They reported that the maximum increment
 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487
Fig. 11. Thermal conductivity ratio of the prepared nanofluids as a function of
graphene nanosheet concentration at room temperature. Comparison with the
thermal conductivity results on graphene nanofluids of others [37], reproduced
with permission from AIP (license number 3736820922495).
Fig. 12. Comparison of spherical (metals and metal oxide), rod (CNT) and flat sheet
(graphene) nanofluids in their thermal conductivity enhancement [87], reproduced
with permission from AIP (license number 3736821162972).
Fig. 13. Thermal conductivity of graphene, graphene/SiO2, and graphene/SiO2-SDBS
nanofluids [61], reproduced with permission from Elsevier (license number
3736821352591).
477
Fig. 14. Thermal conductivity enhancement ratios of the nanofluids as a function of
nanoparticle loading, reproduced with permission from Springer under an open
access journal.
Fig. 15. Temperature-dependent effective thermal conductivity enhancement of h-
BN and G nanofluid [91], reproduced with permission from ACS.
in viscosity is about 4.9% which occurs at 25 °C and 0.02%
concentration.
Zubir et al. [63] studied on viscosity of reduced graphene oxide
and its hybrid. The viscosity of RGO, RGO-CNF, RGO-CNT and RGO-
GNP at 30 °C was 0.868, 0.893, 0.885 and 0.857 mPa s, respectively.
In the other paper, Zubir et al. [65] further studied the rheological
and thermal properties of RGO and its hybrid and showed that the
RGO colloidal system behaved in Newtonian manner. Fig. 17 shows
the viscosity of RGO in comparison to other nanoparticles as
reported by Zubir et al. [65].
The viscosity of GO and GO-GNP nanofluid was further investi-
gated by Kazi et al. [64]. They reported that the viscosity of the
mixture increases more than eight times than the viscosity of GO
alone at a shear rate of 1/s and the viscosity drops sharply at
1/200 s to 1.6 times.
However, there are few reports about the direct relationship
between viscosity and thermal conductivity of graphene nanoflu-
ids. The viscosity has significant effects on stability of nanofluids
and heat transfer properties of nanofluid. Therefore, more investi-
gations are required to understand the viscosity of graphene
nanofluids.
478 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487

Table 8
Analytical models for to the study the flow behavior.

Analytical models Formula Remarks

Bingham plastic model
Power law model
Herschel–Bulkley model
s ¼ s0 lp ! s0 is the yield stress and lp is the plastic viscosity (cP)
s ¼ K !n K is the consistency index (Pa sn), n is the flow behavior index (dimensionless), and c is the shear rate (s1). Three cases
may occur: n may be equal to, less than, or greater than one. In these cases, the nanofluid is Newtonian, pseudoplastic
(the plot of shear stress against shear strain passes through the origin), or Bingham (fluids that have a linear shear stress/
shear rate relationship and require a finite yield stress before they begin to flow), or dilatant, respectively
s ¼ s0 þ K !n The Herschel–Bulkley model is a hybrid of power law and Bingham models

4.3. Electrical conductivity
Nanofluids is a homogenous suspension of nanoparticle in the
base fluid and could enhanced some properties of base fluid includ-
ing thermal conductivity, viscosity and electrical conductivity.
These properties are important influencing factors in the heat
transfer improvement and effect the pumping power penalty and
convective heat transfer coefficients of fluids. Additionally, it can
be noted that the significance of electrical conductivity character-
istics of graphene nanofluid has been ignored in the most of studies
and a few research works have been fully studied on the electrical
properties of nanofluids [4].
Based on the literatures, the most valuable properties of gra-
phene is a zero-overlap semimetal with very high electrical con-
ductivity. Carbon atoms has highly-mobile electrons and it is
called p electrons that located below and above the graphene
sheet. These p orbitals overlap and helps to enhance the carbon
to carbon bonds in graphene. Basically, the electronic properties
of graphene are dictated by the bonding and anti-bonding of these
p orbitals [31].
Among the electrical conductivity studies, there is only two
works are fully investigated on the electrical conductivity of gra-
phene nanofluid and have been done by Mehrali et al. [7] and
Hadadian et al. [62]. They developed their own model on the elec-
trical conductivity of graphene nanofluids. Some other researchers
experimentally calculated the electrical conductivity of nanofluid
and it is listed in Table 9.
4.4. Density

Density of nanofluid is one of the main parameters for assessing

the heat transfer characteristics. Researchers normally expressed
the properties of nanofluids in volume percent (vol%) while the
loading analysis was obtained in weight percent (wt%). The density
of nanofluid could be determined experimental or numerically.
Among all graphene nanofluid studies, only Liu et al. [57] fully
studied the density of graphene nanofluid. They calculated density
of the nanofluid by the following procedure:
Firstly, nanofluid samples with the same volume fraction was
poured into the measuring cylinders and then the whole system
was weighed. Secondly, the system was heated and the volume

Table 9
Summary of electrical conductivity work on graphene nanofluids.

Investigator
Baby and Ramaprabhu [48]
Baby and Sundara [35], and
Fig. 16. Viscosity of different nanoparticle concentration (0.01 vol%) at constant
Baby and Ramaprabhu [36]
temperature (25 °C) [43], reproduced with permission from Springer under an open
access journal.
Aravind and Ramaprabhu [51]
Kole and Dey [37]
Hadadian et al. [62]
Mehrali et al. [7]
Mehrali et al. [4]
Ma et al. [72]
Fig. 17. Viscosity against temperature for RGO along with other well-established
data of different colloids (NIST: national institute of standards and technology) [65],
reproduced with permission from Elsevier (license number 3732940014969).
Observation
Enhancement of about 1400% was observed
for 0.03 vol% at 25 °C
Since CuO is not a good electrical conductor,
the electrical conductivity is not as high as
that of f-HEG and increases up to 400%
A remarkable improvement in the electrical
conductivity resulted. About an 81%
enhancement at 0.008% and a 190%
enhancement at 0.14% volume fraction of
the GN/EG nanofluids at room temperature.
For GN/DI water based nanofluids, an
enhancement of 33% and 55% was attained
at the respective of 0.008 and 0.14 vol%, at
room temperature
The electrical conductivity of 0.395 vol% f-
HEG at 30 °C increases up to 8620%
Maximum enhancement of about 25,678%
was observed for mass fraction of 0.0006 of
GO at 25 °C
The maximum enhancement of electrical
conductivity is 308.16%, 667.34%, 1311.56%,
and 1814.96% at the loading of 0.01, 0.02,
0.04, and 0.06 wt%, respectively
The maximum enhancement of around 950%
was observed at 25 °C
An enhancement of about 1400% was
observed for a weight fraction of 0.07% at
25 °C
 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487
Table 10
Specific heats of typical base fluids.
Base fluid Specific heat capacity (cp, J/kg K)
Water 4183
Ethylene glycol 2740
Ethyl alcohol 2430
Toluene 1700
Silicon oil 1470
Refrigerant R134a 1410
of the nanofluid was recorded at specific temperature. Hence, the
density of nanofluid could be calculated by q ¼ m=V for each tem-
perature, where m represents the weight of the samples and V rep-
resents the volume of the samples [57]. Additionally, the density of
nanofluid could be calculated numerically using Eq. (4) [94].
qnf ¼ uqnp þ ð1  uÞqbf ð4Þ
where u is volume fraction, and nf, np, and bf is nanofluid, nanopar-
ticle and basefluid, respectively.
4.5. Specific heat capacity (cp)
Thermal properties studies were the main investigations in
nanofluid area for the decades. The specific heat is one of the
important properties and plays an important role in influencing
heat transfer rate of nanofluids. Specific heat capacity is defined
as the ratio of the amount of energy that has to be transferred from
one unit of mass or amount of substance to change the system
temperature by one degree. However, the specific heat capacity
has received very little attention for the graphene nanofluid. The
specific heats of common base fluids are presented in Table 10.
It is measured usually with J/kg K. Specific heat of nanofluids
can be determined using Eqs. (5) and (6)).
C p;nf ¼ uC p;np þ ð1  uÞC p;bf ð5Þ
and
ðqC p Þnf ¼ uðqC p Þnp þ ð1  uÞðqC p Þbf ð6Þ
It is thought that Eq. (6) is theoretically more consistent since
specific heat is a mass specific quantity and these effect depend
on the density of the components and mixture. Differential scan-
ning calorimetry (DSC) is a powerful tool to measure the heat
capacity of nanofluids. The difference in the amount of heat flow
required for heating up a sample pan and reference pan are mea-
sured as a function of temperature. During the whole process,
the sample and reference pans are maintained at nearly the same
temperature throughout the experiment. The heat capacity of the
reference pan is already known. By measuring the difference in
heat flow, the heat capacity of the sample is obtained. If there
are phase transitions happened in the sample pan, more or less
heat will need to flow to it than the reference to maintain both
at the same temperature. Therefore, endo-thermal or exo-
thermal peaks are shown on the DSC curves corresponding to melt-
ing or freezing point. The phase transition temperatures and latent
heats are determined according to the DSC curves [7,57].
A few researchers have experimentally investigated the influ-
ence of nanoparticles on the specific heat capacity of graphene
nanofluid [7,57,94]. Mehrali et al. [7] studied numerically and
experimentally analyzed specific heat capacity of NDG nanofluid.
They developed a model for the specific heat based on the First
Law of Thermodynamics. They showed that the specific heat of
NDG at 0.01 wt% was decreased by approximately 7.4–9.4% com-
pared to the loading of 0.06 wt%. Liu et al. [57] investigated on
the graphene-dispersed Ionanofluids using DSC. They showed that
the specific heat containing 0.03 wt% graphene varies from 2.258
479
to 2.363 J g1 C1 as the temperature is increased from 25 to
215 °C, and accordingly varies from 2.236 to 2.260 J g1 C1 when
the graphene loading was 0.06 wt%. They also developed their
own model on the specific heat capacity. Ahammed et al. [94]
observed that the specific heat ratio of graphene nanofluid is
decreased with increase of concentration. The reduction in specific
heat ratio is 0.091%, 0.181% and 0.271% for 0.05, 0.1 and 0.15 vol%
at an average temperature of 50 °C, respectively.
5. Applications of graphene nanofluid
The enhancement of the heat transfer is an important factor in
most industrial processes and can improve with effective thermal
conductivity as well as changes in density, viscosity and specific
heat. Therefore, performance of the heat transfer fluids utilized in
these systems, has a remarkable impact on energy efficiency for
practical applications. Significant environmental and economic
benefits could be obtained by exploiting more effective heat trans-
fer fluids [12,13,15,95]. There are several parameters including
channel and surface conditions (rough or smooth) and diameters,
heater shape, size, material, and orientation degree, presence of
surfactants and working fluid properties (i.e. thermal properties,
viscosity, subcooling, etc.) affecting heat transfer performance
(i.e. convective heat transfer coefficient and critical heat flux,
etc.) and bubble dynamics of flow and pool boiling characteristics
[15].
The conventional theory that used to predict the thermal con-
ductivity of nanofluid cannot be used to explain the high thermal
conductivity of graphene nanofluids. Many experimental results
encouraged efforts in identifying possible mechanisms based on
a variety of experimental observations and some numerical simu-
lations for thermal conductivity and heat transfer enhancement.
The suggested mechanisms normally fall into two categories:
dynamic and static mechanisms. Therefore, to understand the
enhancement of thermal conductivity of nanofluids, it is necessary
to create a dynamic condition for evaluating its usage and the per-
formance of nanofluids in convective environments [96,97]. There
are two static mechanisms available including liquid-layering at
the particle–liquid interface as a heat transfer bridge, as shown
in Fig. 18(a) and the particle aggregation has formed chain shape
like a thermal transport path, as shown in Fig. 18(b). There are
two dynamic mechanisms including the particle Brownian motion
as shown in Fig. 18(c) and the convection in base fluid induced by
the particle Brownian motion, as shown in Fig. 18(d).
Additionally, nanofluids can improve the heat transfer coeffi-
cient of thermal energy systems, hence, heat exchangers size could
be reduced and it leads to design a heat exchanger with higher
energy and fuel efficiencies, lower pollution and improved reliabil-
ity of the systems. Therefore, it is important to directly measure
the heat transfer performance of nanofluids under different flow
conditions for the specific applications including forced convective
heat transfer (laminar, transient and turbulent flow).
5.1. General overview of forced convective heat transfer
Convection is a type of heat transfer in thermal energy system
that is transferred by molecular movement in fluids. In practice,
forced convection systems include two mechanisms of heat trans-
fer: thermal conduction and advection. Due to advection, convec-
tion heat transfer is a significantly more complex phenomenon
than thermal conduction. Analytical approach of convection
requires solutions for the continuity equations of mass, momen-
tum and energy. Convection in laminar flow is quite well under-
stood and analytical solutions exist for several geometries and
480 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487

heat transfer of nanofluids were also proposed by some research-

ers. Generally, pressure loss of fully developed incompressible flow
in a straight pipe can be expressed with Darcy–Weisbach Equation
[15].

DP f qV2
¼ ð8Þ
L 2d

5.1.1. Comparison of the convective heat transfer performances

The heat transfer coefficient itself yields little information about
the suitability of the fluid for practical applications. It may be men-
tioned that insufficient heat transfer coefficient can always be
increased by changing the flow velocity. In practice, this can be
done by simply increasing the pump frequency. The actual utility
cost of heat transfer is therefore the electrical energy consumed
by the circulation pumps. Consequently, the final practical aim of
improving convective heat transfer performance of fluids is to
decrease the power of pumps or alternatively the size and financial
cost of heat exchangers.
Experimental results of convective heat transfer of nanofluids
are most commonly presented by plotting Nusselt number as a
Fig. 18. Sketch of four potential mechanisms responsible for the reported conduc-
tivity enhancement: (a) liquid-layering, (b) particle aggregation, (c) particle function of Reynolds number. Nanofluids have been noticed to typ-
Brownian motion and (d) Brownian-motion-induced convection [98], reproduced ically reach higher Nusselt numbers than water when compared on
with permission from Hindawi under an open access journal. this basis. However, such ‘‘enhancement” does not state that utiliz-
ing nanofluids would necessarily improve the performance of real
heat exchangers. To compare the heat transfer coefficients for two
Table 11
Correlations for fully developed turbulent forced convection through a circular tube
different fluids at the same Reynolds number (Re) requires a higher
(Nu – Nusselt number, Re – Reynolds number, Pr – Prandtl number and f – friction flow rate (pumping power) for the fluid with higher viscosity.
factor). Hence, the higher heat transfer at same Re number is not only
because of the nanofluids performance, but might be due to the
Equation’s name Formula
higher flow rate of nanofluids (for measuring at same Re number).
Dittus-Boelter Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:8 Pr k , k = 0.3 for cooling and 0.4 for Due to these reasons, it might be better to choose constant velocity
heating
instead of constant Re number. Same statement has been followed
Colburn Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:8 Pr 1=3
McAdams
by Sadeghinezhad et al. [15], Mehrali et al. [13] and some other
Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:8 Pr 0:4
Prandtl ð2f ÞRe Pr
researchers [12,63].
Nu ¼ 0:8
1þ8:7ð2f Þ ðPr1Þ Sadeghinezhad et al. [15,95] studied the effect of pumping
Petukhov and
Nu ¼
ð2f ÞRe Pr power. They have shown that graphene nanoplatelet (GNP) nano-
1=2
Kirillov 1:07þ12:7ð2f Þ ðPr2=3 1Þ fluid has little effect on the pumping power penalty. Sadegh-
Gnielinski ð2f ÞðRe1000ÞPr
Nu ¼ 1=2 inezhad et al. [15] found a factor of 1.77 for the thermal
1þ12:7ð2f Þ ðPr2=3 1Þ
performance. Also, Mehrali et al. [12] studied thermal performance
factor and found a factor of up to 1.15. Mehrali et al. [12] and
Sadeghinezhad et al. [15] also studied the entropy generation anal-
most useful equation that is used in many researches is the well-
ysis of nanofluids that is useful to analyze thermal design opti-
known Shah’s Eq. (7)).
mization of the heat exchangers. Akhavan-Zanjani et al. [42]
8 1=3 introduced new way of stability for convective heat transfer coef-
< 1:302x  1
> x 6 0:00005
ficient. They examined stability of the graphene–water nanofluids
Nu ¼ 1:302x1=3
  0:5 0:00005 6 x 6 0:0015
by UV–Vis spectroscopy. They tested the graphene–water nano-
>
: 0:506
4:346 þ 8:68ð103 x Þ expð41x Þ x P 0:001 fluid before and 1 week after experiments and it was almost stable
ð7Þ with a little sedimentations. Mehrali et al. [12] studied the stability
of nanofluid by determining the sedimentation with centrifuge.
 x

Sadeghinezhad et al. [95] numerically and experimentally studied
where Nu ¼ hðxÞdtube =k, x ¼
di
RePr
[12].
the heat transfer properties of graphene nanoplatelet (GNP) nano-
However, a generally established momentum equation for tur- fluid and they studied the stability of nanofluid after experimental
bulent flow does not exist and thus, the heat transfer coefficients test by sedimentation photograph capturing method. Experimental
cannot be accurately determined analytically. Due to the lack of heat transfer results on laminar and turbulent flow for different
analytical solutions, the heat transfer coefficients in turbulent flow types of graphene nanofluids as reported in the literature are listed
are often determined with experimental correlations. However, the in Table 12. The nanofluid types and testing parameters are pre-
heat transfer coefficients obtained using these correlations are not sented in Table 12 along with the heat transfer enhancement ratio
accurate and include a large possible error of approximately 5– that was determined experimentally.
15%. Some of the most used correlations for fully developed turbu- In summary, it is difficult to identify a recognized theory to pre-
lent forced convection heat transfer flow through a circular tube dict accurately the convective heat transfer characteristics of gra-
are presented in Table 11. phene nanofluids. Much research works was conducted with the
Several previous experimental studies indicated that the heat graphene nanofluids as single-phase fluid rather than two-phase
transfer behavior of nanofluids does not follow the conventional mixture. However, the nanoparticle and liquid interaction and
correlations [15]. Consequently, specific correlations for convective the movement between the nanoparticle and liquids should play
 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487 481

Table 12
Summary of experiments on convective heat transfer of graphene nanofluids.

Investigator Geometry Nanoparticle Finding

Baby and Sundara [35]
Baby and Ramaprabhu [36]
Baby and Ramaprabhu [50]
Yang et al. [88]
Theres Baby and Sundara [55]
Sadeghinezhad et al. [15]
Akhavan-Zanjani et al. [42]
Sadeghinezhad et al. [95]
Zubir et al. [63]
Mehrali et al. [13]
Mehrali et al. [12]
Ghozatloo et al. [71]
Hajjar et al. [59]
Ghozatloo et al. [99]
Straight stainless steel tube
(L = 108 cm, d = 23 mm)
Straight stainless steel tube
(L = 108 cm, d = 23 mm)
Straight stainless steel tube
(L = 108 cm, d = 23 mm)
Straight copper tube (L = 2.68 m,
1.3462 cm)
Straight stainless steel tube
(L = 108 cm, d = 23 mm)
Straight stainless steel tube
(L = 1400 mm, d = 10 mm)
Straight copper tube
(d = 4.20 mm, L = 2740.2 mm)
Straight stainless steel tube
(L = 1400 mm, d = 10 mm)
Straight stainless steel tube
(L = 1400 mm, d = 10 mm)
Straight stainless steel tube
(L = 1400 mm, d = 10 mm)
Straight stainless steel tube
(L = 2000 mm, d = 4.5 mm)
Circular copper tube of 1 m
length with an inner diameter/
outside-diameter of 1.07/1.30 cm
A brass tube
A copper pipe
Copper oxide decorated
graphene (CuO/HEG)
Hydrogen exfoliated
graphene (HEG)
Silver decorated
functionalized hydrogen
induced exfoliated graphene
(Ag/HEG)
Diamond-graphene (ND-50)
nanoparticle
Hybrid material is decorated
with silver nanoparticles
(Ag/(MWNT-HEG))
Graphene nanoplatelet (GNP)
Graphene
Graphene nanoplatelet (GNP)
Reduced graphene oxide and
its hybrid complexes
Graphene nanoplatelet (GNP)
with different specific
surface area
Graphene nanoplatelet (GNP)
Graphene nanofluids
Graphene dispersed
nanofluids
Ethylene glycol/-graphene
nanofluid
Turbulent flow (Re = 4500–15,500), the enhancement in heat
transfer coefficient is 81–232%
For turbulent flow (Re = 4500–15,500), the enhancement in
heat transfer coefficient is 21–171%
For laminar flow (Re = 250–1000), the enhancement in heat
transfer coefficient is 59–219% (at the entrance)
For turbulent flow (Re = 4500–15,500), the enhancement in
heat transfer coefficient is 105–188%
For laminar flow (Re = 250–1000), the enhancement in heat
transfer coefficient is 188–327% (at the entrance)
Laminar flow (Re = 290–1550), the enhancement in Nu is about
3–6%
Laminar flow (Re = 250–1000), the enhancement in heat
transfer coefficient is up to 570% (at the entrance)
Turbulent flow (0.3–1.3 m/s or Re = 5000–22,000). Three
different heat flux (8231, 10,351, and 12,320 W/m2). The
convective heat transfer coefficient increases by 13–160%
The pressure drop increments is between 0.4% and 14.6%
Turbulent flow (Re = 4000–10,850), the maximum
augmentation is 6.04%
The maximum pressure drop is 0.8%
Numerically and experimentally study of turbulent flow
(Re = 5000–22,000). Three different heat flux (8231, 10,351,
and 12,320 W/m2). The convective heat transfer coefficient
increases by 13–160%
The pressure drop increments is between 0.4% and 14.6%
Turbulent flow (Re = 4583–14,065), the maximum
augmentation is 144%
Turbulent flow (0.3–1.3 m/s or Re = 5000–22,000). The
convective heat transfer coefficient increases by 83–200%
The pressure drop increments is between 0.06% and 14.7%
Laminar flow (0.05–0.4 m/s or Re = 290–2300). The convective
heat transfer coefficient increases up to 15%
Laminar flow (Re = 1940 and in a constant heat flux of
420.5 W). The local heat transfer coefficients increased up to
27.2%
Turbulent flow (Re = 4500–15,500). The convective heat
transfer coefficient increases up to 171%
Turbulent flow (Re = 2840). The convective heat transfer
coefficient increases up to 42.4%

significant roles in affecting the convective heat transfer perfor- The heat flux at the surface (vertical axis) and the superheat
mance of graphene nanofluids. (horizontal axis) are measured during boiling. First, heat is
removed from the surface through natural convection and no bub-
bles are formed. Next in the nucleate boiling regime, the liquid at
5.2. Boiling heat transfer of nanofluid
the surface begins to evaporate and bubbles form at nucleation
sites. This regime is characterized by a very high heat transfer rate
To meet increasing power demands across several industries,
at low surface temperatures. Once the critical heat flux (CHF) has
advanced thermal management systems based on boiling heat
been reached, the population of bubbles obstructs the path of
transfer have been proposed by researchers. Furthermore, nanoflu-
incoming liquid and forms an insulating vapor layer. This is
ids, a relatively new class of coolant, created by suspending nano
referred to as the transition boiling regime. At this point, there is
sized particles (1–100 nm) in a base fluid and have been shown a
a rapid decrease in the heat that can be removed and a rapid
significant improvement on thermal properties by the scientific
increase of the surface temperature. Finally in the film boiling
community. Pool boiling studies of nanofluids demonstrated either
regime, a stable vapor film is formed and there is no fluid–surface
enhanced or diminished boiling heat transfer, yet have been unable
contact. When boiling heat transfer (BHT) is enhanced, the curve of
to distinguish the contributions of increased surface roughness and
Fig. 19(a) shifts up or to the left. This means more heat can be
suppression of bubble transport by suspended nanoparticles. The
removed from the surface at the same temperature, or at the same
boiling performance of the coated surfaces increases significantly
heat flux, the surface temperature is lower. Enhancement of pool
with each cycle. The experimental results demonstrated that the
boiling heat transfer can accomplished through (a) modifying the
effect of increased surface roughness due to nanoparticle layering
surface, (b) sub-cooling the returning liquid, and/or (c) increasing
can enhance boiling for the base fluid.
the operating pressure. Enhancement of boiling performance can
Advanced cooling techniques are based on boiling heat transfer
refer to increases in boiling heat transfer coefficient (HTC),
since it is an efficient method of removing large heat fluxes
increases in CHF, reduction in the boiling incipience temperature,
through the phase change of the liquid. Pool boiling is boiling of
or decreases in boiling hysteresis [100].
a heated surface submerged in a pool of liquid. Fig. 19(a) shows a
Boiling heat transfer is an important parameter in power elec-
characteristic curve of boiling heat transfer over four distinct
tronics cooling, enabling high performance thermal management
regimes, and Fig. 19(b) illustrates the bubble formation in these
systems using thermosyphons, heat pipes and spray cooling. The
regimes [100].
482 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487
Fig. 19. (a) Boiling curve for DW through four different boiling regimes as a function of superheat and (b) visualization of the different boiling regimes [100], reproduced with
permission from Elsevier (license number 3732940605523).
boiling performance of a system is affected by the properties of the
fluid, such as the thermal conductivity, surface tension, and den-
sity; the properties of the boiling surface, such as the material,
geometry, orientation, wettability and surface roughness; the
properties of the system, such as system pressure; the fluid–sur-
face interaction; and the mechanisms of bubble growth such as
departure and movement.
5.2.1. Boiling heat transfer-correlations
Based on previous research on different correlations to predict
the boiling heat transfer coefficient and critical heat flux, there
are two main predictions correlations [101,102]. These correlations
were used to compare the experimental data [6].
Based on literature and analysis of different relevant factors in
nucleate experimental boiling data over a wide variety of condi-
tions, the Rosenow correlation found to be the most widely used
nucleate boiling correlation and is expressed by Eq. (9).
" sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#0:33
cp ðT w  T s Þ q00 r
c ln
¼ C sf
p
ð9Þ
hfg lhfg gðq  qg Þ k own correlation on the CHF for nanofluids containing graphene
where cp, hfg, Tw, Ts, q00 , q, qg , r, g and k are specific heat of liquid, the
latent heat of the fluid, temperature of heater wall, saturation tem-
perature of liquid, heat flux, viscosity of saturated liquid, density of
saturated liquid, density of saturated vapor, surface tension, accel-
eration of gravity and thermal conductivity of liquid, respectively.
The values for empirical coefficient Csf and exponent n for various
surface–fluid combinations can be found elsewhere [6].
The maximum heat flux achievable in the nucleate pool boiling
regimes is called the point of departure from nucleate boiling
(DNB) or critical heat flux (CHF). A widely used correlation, which
predicts the pool boiling CHF for a flat infinite heater surface (fac-
ing upwards) is Zuber’s correlation and is expressed by Eq. (10).
g hfg ½g rðq  qg Þ
q00CHF ¼ K q1=2 1=4
ð10Þ
The value of constant K ranged from 0.138 to 0.157. However,
with the simplification, proposed a value of K is considered as
0.131. In the most of the pool boiling heat transfer and critical heat
flux of nanofluids, abovementioned correlations do not agree well
with the experimental results. Therefore, there is strong need to
develop new correlations or modify these classical models to be
used for nanofluids. For example, Park et al. [6] developed their
and GON. They showed that the critical heat flux enhancement of
graphene and graphene-oxide nanosheets (GON) nanofluid cannot
be explained by both the improved surface wettability and the cap-
illarity of the nanoparticles deposition layer.
 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487 483

Fig. 20. Results of CHF enhancement for each test fluid compared with the Zuber Fig. 21. Schematic of the experimental setup for a solar receiver [16], reproduced
correlation [44], reproduced with permission from Elsevier (license number with permission from Elsevier (license number 3732940854968).
3732940717079).
In the wide research activity on the thermal properties and heat
transfer characteristics, only one paper [16] has recently investi-
Park and Bang [44] studied on the CHF enhancement ratio for
gated on the optical properties of graphene nanofluids in order to
different metal oxide and graphene nanofluids and compared the
use them for direct energy absorption in solar thermal collectors.
results with Zuber’s correlation (see Fig. 20). They found that
This efficient idea is a method to absorb solar radiation and convert
CuO has largest enhancement (160%) and ZnO has lowest enhance-
it into heat in the working nanofluids and therefore minimizing the
ment (90%) and the enhancement was closely related to the
heat loss in the solar plant (see Fig. 21) [16].
buildup of a deposit layer of nanoparticles.
Liu et al. [16] experimentally and numerically studied a gra-
The nanofluid types and testing parameters for evaluation of
phene nanofluid with low vapor pressure and high thermal stability
critical heat flux are listed in Table 13 along with the enhancement
and showed that the this novel heat transfer fluid is highly desirable
ratio that was determined experimentally.
for both high temperature direct solar and concentrated solar col-
lectors. The results indicated that the experimental temperature
5.2.2. Optical properties of nanoparticles for direct absorption solar
was in good agreement with numerical results under the same con-
thermal energy
ditions. Based on the model, it was shown that the solar simulator
The researches have shown that the addition of small amounts
receiver efficiency increases with the solar radiation and receiver
of nanoparticles in a base fluid significantly changes the optical
height, but decreases with the graphene concentration.
properties of base fluid that can be easily observe by an UV–Vis
spectrophotometer. Besides the obvious optical properties, the
other parameters including material size, shape, color and 5.2.3. Application of heat pipe systems for heat recovery and
nanoparticles concentration and nanofluid properties including renewable energy applications
absorption/scattering and spectral selectively make nanofluid suit- Numerous worldwide investigations were carried out on the
able for different applications [16,105]. performance evaluation of nanofluids in a thermosyphon and heat

Table 13
Review of graphene nanofluid boiling literature.

Investigator Heating surface (Type of boiling) Nanofluid Changing in CHF Particle

deposition
Park et al. [6] Nickel-chrome (80/20) wires (pool) Graphene/graphene- Up to 179% enhancement Yes
oxide nanosheets
nanofluid
Park et al. [52] Nickel-chrome (80/20) wires (pool) Graphene oxide Enhancement up to about 40% at minimum at Yes
nanofluid vertical orientation and 200% at horizontal
orientation
Park and Bang [53] External reactor vessel cooling (ERVC) Graphene oxide Up to 20% enhancement Yes
channel nanofluid
Lee et al. [40] 1/200 stainless steel 316L tube (flow) Graphene oxide Up to 100% enhancement Yes
nanofluid
Park and Bang [44] Nickel-chrome (80/20) wires (pool) Graphene oxide Up to 150% enhancement Yes
nanofluid
Zhang et al. [56] 25 mm diameter nickel-plated copper sphere Graphene oxide 13.2–25% enhancement Yes
nanosheets nanofluid
Cheedarala et al. [103] Nickel-chrome (80/20) wires (pool) CuO:GO-NCs nanofluid Up to 102% enhancement Yes
Fan et al. [69] Polished stainless steel spheres, with a Graphene oxide Up to 400% Yes
diameter of 10 mm nanofluid
Park et al. [70] Sprayed onto the zirconium specimen Multi-wall carbon Up to 67.27% Yes
nanotubes and graphene
nanofluid
Zhang et al. [104] Copper spheres, with a diameter of 50 mm, Graphene oxide Up to 25% Yes
plated with nickel were used as the nanosheets nanofluid
quenching object
484 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487
Fig. 22. Operating temperature range comparison of the reviewed heat pipe systems [106], reproduced with permission from Elsevier (license number 3732940986966).
pipe. These investigations were mainly focused on the influence of
the base fluid, nanoparticles shape and size, nanoparticle concen-
tration as well as suspension stability with different surfactants.
Use of various nanofluids in a thermosyphon and heat pipe by
increasing the nanoparticle concentration, the wall temperature
of the thermosyphon and heat pipe was decreased compared to
DW under various heat loads [66]. Fig. 22 shows the temperature
range limitations for a copper heat pipe system.
Asirvatham et al. [66] studied on the heat transfer perfor-
mance of a glass thermosyphon using graphene–acetone nano-
fluid. Their experimental studies focused on the effect of heat
load, volume concentration and vapor temperature on thermal
resistance, evaporator and condenser heat transfer coefficients.
They found reduction in thermal resistance by 70.3% and
enhancement in the evaporator heat transfer coefficient by
61.25%. They also studied the different flow patterns in the evap-
orator, adiabatic and condenser sections of heat pipe at the differ-
ent conditions.
Li Tong et al. [68] reported the application of fast water perme-
ation property of immersed GO deposition for enhancing the per-
formance of a GO–water nanofluid charged in a two-phase closed
thermosyphon. By benchmarking its performance against a silver
oxide (SO)–water nanofluid charged two-phase closed ther-
mosyphon, the enhancement of evaporation strength was found
to be essentially attributed to the fast water permeation property
of GO deposition instead of the enhanced surface wettability of
the deposited layer. They found that the average evaporator heat
transfer coefficient was enhanced in a thermosyphon with GO
deposition, with a minimum of 11.4% and a maximum of 83.3%
of enhancement as compared to the uncoated thermosyphon
(charged with DI water).
Zakaria et al. [76] studied the thermal performances of gra-
phene oxide (GO)/water nanofluids heat pipes with a screen mesh
wick. The wall temperatures of the GO/water nanofluids-filled heat
pipes were found to be lower than heat pipe operated with water.
Moreover, the heat pipes charged with GO/water nanofluids
showed lower evaporator thermal resistances by about 25% com-
pared to the water-filled heat pipe, although the condenser ther-
mal resistances were similar in both cases.
Finally, during the last decade, a few research works were
focused on the usage of graphene and plasmonic nanofluids for
the direct optical absorption of solar energy and thermal collectors.
Thus, the conclusion of this research work is that the research in
this field is still young and need further investigations.
6. Concluding remark
This paper presents a scientific overview of the recent develop-
ments of graphene nanofluids with a specific attention to the dif-
ferent parameters that influence the thermal performance in
different applications. Based on the literature study, it has been
found that more attention has been paid to the thermal conductiv-
ity of graphene based nanofluids rather than the many other
important aspects of this fluid. Authors also found that in many
cases experimental results from different research groups differed
significantly. Authors also found that there is a lack of understand-
ing in thermal conductivity and heat transfer enhancement.
The long-term stability of nanofluids is a key issue for both scien-
tific and practical applications. To date, the long-term stability of
most studied nanofluids is not confirmed and more basic theoretical
and experimental work is required for improving the stability of
nanofluids. There are very limited studies on the long term stability
of the nanofluids. Stability at high temperature has not been carried
out as well. Additionally, this research work has reviewed the general
effective parameters on thermal and rheological properties, force
convective heat transfer, pool boiling, critical heat flux and optical
properties of graphene nanofluids. The results show that the thermal
conductivity of graphene nanofluid is influenced by nanoparticle
concentration; size; shape; basefluid; temperature; additives and
acidity. Generally, the conclusions in published literature are not
always in agreement, but some common conclusions are as follows:
1. Normally nanofluid thermal conductivity increases linearly
with nanoparticle concentration. (Except in some cases where
the increment was non-linear.)
2. Thermal conductivity enhancement for nanofluids is generally
independent of temperature.
3. Clustering has an important role in influencing thermal
conductivity.
It should be noted that the convective heat transfer coefficient
of nanofluids was relatively low and reported results found to be
contradictory. Even though in some cases the experimental condi-
 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487
tions were similar but some groups reported the convective heat
transfer coefficients as a function of the Reynolds number, yet
others reported as a function of the fluid velocities. Generally,
increase in convective heat transfer coefficient is higher than the
increase thermal conductivity in most cases.
From the review of available experimental results for boiling heat
transfer, authors found substantial increase in the boiling critical
heat flux of nanofluids as function of concentrations. However,
reported data are still limited and scattered to clearly understand
the underlying mechanisms and trend of boiling heat transfer per-
formance of nanofluids. In addition, only a couple of efforts have
been made on flow boiling of nanofluids. Thus, it is imperative to
conduct more research on flow boiling of nanofluids under the influ-
ence of various factors such as pressure, mass flux and subcooling. It
is worth noting that the observed results on boiling heat transfer of
nanofluids are not based on solid physical-chemistry concepts but
rather based on common presumptions such as deposition of
nanoparticles on heat transfer surface and surface wettability.
Finally, during the last few years, studies have been focused on
application of graphene nanofluids for the direct optical absorption
of solar energy and solar collector systems. In fact, it is well known
that the addition of small quantities of nanoparticles in a base fluid
drastically changes its optical properties. The nanoparticle allows
the researchers to modify the nanofluids properties such as
absorption/scattering and spectral selectively, in order to make
them suitable for different applications. As a conclusion it can be
mentioned that the graphene is a quiet promising material to be
used as heat exchanging fluid. However, the research in this field
is still relatively young to be conclusive and graphene nanofluids
require further investigations.
7. Recommendations for future direction
Many industries have a strong need for improved fluids that can
transfer heat more efficiently. Nanofluids transfer heat more effi-
ciently than do conventional fluids. Therefore, when used to
improve the design and performance of thermal management sys-
tems. Nanofluids have offered a number of advantages including
reduction in cooling system size, improved reliability, decreased
pumping-power needs and lower pollution, increased energy and
fuel efficiencies. Hence, this research investigation has focused
on the thermophysical properties and applications of graphene
nanofluids. However, further research is required for better under-
standing of graphene nanofluids. The authors have given much
attention to nanofluids containing a single nanoparticle, while a
few investigations have been done with hybrid graphene nanoflu-
ids. Therefore, further investigations can be focused on combina-
tions of different types of nanoparticles (i.e., hybrid nanofluid)
and finding out the main parameters that affecting the thermo-
physical properties of graphene nanofluids.
Researchers have investigated the effect of a few parameters
including nanoparticle concentration, working temperature, shear
rate range on the rheological behavior of nanofluids but some
information has been ignored or has not been focused well includ-
ing high temperature (70 °C and above) related to the graphene
nanofluid properties and applications, effect of different types of
surfactant, corrosion study for graphene nanofluids applications,
nanofluid latent heat of vaporization and vapor pressure, electrical
conductivity, boiling heat transfer, etc. The available information of
graphene nanosheets are limited and specifications are not accu-
rate. The optimization of the above mentioned parameters could
be carried out in synthesizing a new class of graphene nanofluids
that offer the challenges related to production, properties, heat
transfer and applications. Therefore, the development of new pro-
duction technique for the graphene nanosheets could be helpful for
485
the future of research. Finally, a theoretical model needs to be
developed, which explains the empirical data.
Authors’ contributions
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
This research work has been financially supported by the High
Impact Research (MOHE-HIR) grant UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOHE/
ENG/21, and the University of Malaya in Malaysia.
References
[1] Sharifpur M, Adio SA, Meyer JP. Experimental investigation and model
development for effective viscosity of Al2O3–glycerol nanofluids by using
dimensional analysis and GMDH-NN methods. Int Commun Heat Mass
Transfer 2015;68:208–19.
[2] Sharma AK, Tiwari AK, Dixit AR. Rheological behaviour of nanofluids: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:779–91.
[3] Choi SUS, Eastman J. Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with
nanoparticles. IL (United States): Argonne National Lab.; 1995. p. 99–105.
[4] Mehrali M, Sadeghinezhad E, Latibari S Tahan, Kazi SN, Mehrali M, Zubir
MNBM, et al. Investigation of thermal conductivity and rheological properties
of nanofluids containing graphene nanoplatelets. Nanoscale Res Lett
2014;9:1–12.
[5] Graphene: synthesis, properties, and phenomena. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH &
Co. KGaA; 2013.
[6] Park SD, Won Lee S, Kang S, Bang IC, Kim JH, Shin HS, et al. Effects of
nanofluids containing graphene/graphene-oxide nanosheets on critical heat
flux. Appl Phys Lett 2010;97:023103.
[7] Mehrali M, Sadeghinezhad E, Latibari S Tahan, Mehrali M, Togun H, Zubir
MNM, et al. Preparation, characterization, viscosity, and thermal conductivity
of nitrogen-doped graphene aqueous nanofluids. J Mater Sci
2014;49:7156–71.
[8] Poh HL, Sanek F, Ambrosi A, Zhao G, Sofer Z, Pumera M. Graphenes prepared
by Staudenmaier, Hofmann and Hummers methods with consequent thermal
exfoliation exhibit very different electrochemical properties. Nanoscale
2012;4:3515–22.
[9] Park JS, Kihm KD, Kim H, Lim G, Cheon S, Lee JS. Wetting and evaporative
aggregation of nanofluid droplets on CVD-synthesized hydrophobic graphene
surfaces. Langmuir 2014;30:8268–75.
[10] Li H, Jiang M, Li Q, Li D, Chen Z, Hu W, et al. Aqueous preparation of
polyethylene glycol/sulfonated graphene phase change composite with
enhanced thermal performance. Energy Convers Manage 2013;75:482–7.
[11] Tao YB, Lin CH, He YL. Preparation and thermal properties characterization of
carbonate salt/carbon nanomaterial composite phase change material.
Energy Convers Manage 2015;97:103–10.
[12] Mehrali M, Sadeghinezhad E, Rosen MA, Akhiani AR, Latibari S Tahan, Mehrali
M, et al. Heat transfer and entropy generation for laminar forced convection
flow of graphene nanoplatelets nanofluids in a horizontal tube. Int Commun
Heat Mass Transfer 2015;66:23–31.
[13] Mehrali M, Sadeghinezhad E, Rosen MA, Latibari S Tahan, Mehrali M,
Metselaar HSC, et al. Effect of specific surface area on convective heat
transfer of graphene nanoplatelet aqueous nanofluids. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci
2015;68:100–8.
[14] Saidur R, Leong KY, Mohammad HA. A review on applications and challenges
of nanofluids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1646–68.
[15] Sadeghinezhad E, Mehrali M, Latibari S Tahan, Mehrali M, Kazi SN, Oon S,
et al. Experimental investigation of convective heat transfer using graphene
nanoplatelet based nanofluids under turbulent flow conditions. Ind Eng Chem
Res 2014;53:12455–65.
[16] Liu J, Ye Z, Zhang L, Fang X, Zhang Z. A combined numerical and experimental
study on graphene/ionic liquid nanofluid based direct absorption solar
collector. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2015;136:177–86.
[17] Moghaddam MB, Goharshadi EK, Entezari MH, Nancarrow P. Preparation,
characterization, and rheological properties of graphene–glycerol nanofluids.
Chem Eng J 2013;231:365–72.
[18] Mehrali M, Latibari ST, Mehrali M, Indra Mahlia TM, Metselaar HS Cornelis.
Preparation and properties of highly conductive palmitic acid/graphene oxide
composites as thermal energy storage materials. Energy 2013;58:628–34.
[19] Mehrali M, Latibari ST, Mehrali M, Mahlia TMI, Metselaar HSC, Naghavi MS,
et al. Preparation and characterization of palmitic acid/graphene
nanoplatelets composite with remarkable thermal conductivity as a novel
shape-stabilized phase change material. Appl Therm Eng 2013;61:633–40.
[20] Novoselov K, Geim AK, Morozov S, Jiang D, Zhang Y, Dubonos S, et al. Electric
field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science 2004;306:666–9.
[21] Eatemadi A, Daraee H, Karimkhanloo H, Kouhi M, Zarghami N, Akbarzadeh A,
et al. Carbon nanotubes: properties, synthesis, purification, and medical
applications. Nanoscale Res Lett 2014;9:1–13.
486 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487
[22] Kroto H, Heath J. C60: buckminsterfullerene. Nature 1985;3:162–3.
[23] Iijima S. Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature 1991;354:56–8.
[24] Kumar V, Tiwari AK, Ghosh SK. Application of nanofluids in plate heat
exchanger: a review. Energy Convers Manage 2015;105:1017–36.
[25] Wong K-L, Salazar JLL, Prasad L, Chen W-L. The inaccuracy of heat transfer
characteristics for non-insulated and insulated spherical containers
neglecting the influence of heat radiation. Energy Convers Manage
2011;52:1612–21.
[26] Angayarkanni SA, Philip J. Review on thermal properties of nanofluids: recent
developments. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2015;225:146–76.
[27] Yu W, Xie H, Bao D. Enhanced thermal conductivities of nanofluids containing
graphene oxide nanosheets. Nanotechnology 2010;21:055705.
[28] Hummers Jr WS, Offeman RE. Preparation of graphitic oxide. J Am Chem Soc
1958;80:1339.
[29] Mehrali M, Latibari ST, Mehrali M, Metselaar HSC, Silakhori M. Shape-
stabilized phase change materials with high thermal conductivity based on
paraffin/graphene oxide composite. Energy Convers Manage
2013;67:275–82.
[30] Akhiani AR, Mehrali M, Latibari S Tahan, Mehrali M, Mahlia TMI,
Sadeghinezhad E, et al. One-step preparation of form-stable phase change
material through self-assembly of fatty acid and graphene. J Phys Chem C
2015;119:22787–96.
[31] Mehrali M, Sadeghinezhad E, Rashidi M, Akhiani A, Latibari S Tahan, Mehrali
M, et al. Experimental and numerical investigation of the effective electrical
conductivity of nitrogen-doped graphene nanofluids. J Nanopart Res
2015;17:1–17.
[32] Dikin DA, Stankovich S, Zimney EJ, Piner RD, Dommett GHB, Evmenenko G,
et al. Preparation and characterization of graphene oxide paper. Nature
2007;448:457–60.
[33] Yu W, Xie H, Chen L, Li Y, Li D. The preparation and thermal conductivities
enhancement of nanofluids containing graphene oxide nanosheets. In: 2010
14th international heat transfer conference. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers; 2010. p. 569–73.
[34] Martin-Gallego M, Verdejo R, Khayet M, de Zarate JMO, Essalhi M, Lopez-
Manchado MA. Thermal conductivity of carbon nanotubes and graphene in
epoxy nanofluids and nanocomposites. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011;6:1–7.
[35] Baby TT, Sundara R. Synthesis and transport properties of metal oxide
decorated graphene dispersed nanofluids. J Phys Chem C 2011;115:
8527–33.
[36] Baby TT, Ramaprabhu S. Enhanced convective heat transfer using graphene
dispersed nanofluids. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011;6:1–9.
[37] Kole M, Dey TK. Investigation of thermal conductivity, viscosity, and electrical
conductivity of graphene based nanofluids. J Appl Phys 2013;113:084307.
[38] Wang F, Han L, Zhang Z, Fang X, Shi J, Ma W. Surfactant-free ionic liquid-
based nanofluids with remarkable thermal conductivity enhancement at very
low loading of graphene. Nanoscale Res Lett 2012;7:1–7.
[39] Ghozatloo A, Shariaty-Niasar M, Rashidi AM. Preparation of nanofluids from
functionalized graphene by new alkaline method and study on the thermal
conductivity and stability. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2013;42:89–94.
[40] Lee SW, Kim KM, Bang IC. Study on flow boiling critical heat flux
enhancement of graphene oxide/water nanofluid. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
2013;65:348–56.
[41] Sun Z, Pöller S, Huang X, Guschin D, Taetz C, Ebbinghaus P, et al. High-yield
exfoliation of graphite in acrylate polymers: a stable few-layer graphene
nanofluid with enhanced thermal conductivity. Carbon 2013;64:288–94.
[42] Akhavan-Zanjani H, Saffar-Avval M, Mansourkiaei M, Ahadi M, Sharif F.
Turbulent convective heat transfer and pressure drop of graphene–water
nanofluid flowing inside a horizontal circular tube. J Dispersion Sci Technol
2013;35:1230–40.
[43] Dhar P, Ansari M, Gupta S, Siva VM, Pradeep T, Pattamatta A, et al. Percolation
network dynamicity and sheet dynamics governed viscous behavior of
polydispersed graphene nanosheet suspensions. J Nanopart Res
2013;15:1–12.
[44] Park SD, Bang IC. Experimental study of a universal CHF enhancement
mechanism in nanofluids using hydrodynamic instability. Int J Heat Mass
Transfer 2014;70:844–50.
[45] Liu K, Chen S, Luo Y, Jia D, Gao H, Hu G, et al. Noncovalently functionalized
pristine graphene/metal nanoparticle hybrid for conductive composites.
Compos Sci Technol 2014;94:1–7.
[46] Li P, Zheng Y, Wu Y, Qu P, Yang R, Zhang A. Nanoscale ionic graphene material
with liquid-like behavior in the absence of solvent. Appl Surf Sci
2014;314:983–90.
[47] Yu W, Xie H, Chen W. Experimental investigation on thermal conductivity of
nanofluids containing graphene oxide nanosheets. J Appl Phys
2010;107:094317.
[48] Baby TT, Ramaprabhu S. Investigation of thermal and electrical conductivity
of graphene based nanofluids. J Appl Phys 2010;108:124308-6.
[49] Yu W, Xie H, Wang X, Wang X. Significant thermal conductivity enhancement
for nanofluids containing graphene nanosheets. Phys Lett A
2011;375:1323–8.
[50] Baby TT, Ramaprabhu S. Synthesis and nanofluid application of silver
nanoparticles decorated graphene. J Mater Chem 2011;21:9702–9.
[51] Aravind SJ, Ramaprabhu S. Surfactant free graphene nanosheets based
nanofluids by in-situ reduction of alkaline graphite oxide suspensions. J
Appl Phys 2011;110:124326.
[52] Park SD, Lee SW, Kang S, Kim SM, Bang IC. Pool boiling CHF enhancement by
graphene-oxide nanofluid under nuclear coolant chemical environments.
Nucl Eng Des 2012;252:184–91.
[53] Park SD, Bang IC. Flow boiling CHF enhancement in an external reactor vessel
cooling (ERVC) channel using graphene oxide nanofluid. Nucl Eng Des
2013;265:310–8.
[54] Dhar P, Sen Gupta S, Chakraborty S, Pattamatta A, Das SK. The role of
percolation and sheet dynamics during heat conduction in poly-dispersed
graphene nanofluids. Appl Phys Lett 2013;102:163114.
[55] Theres Baby T, Sundara R. Synthesis of silver nanoparticle decorated
multiwalled carbon nanotubes-graphene mixture and its heat transfer
studies in nanofluid. AIP Adv 2013;3:012111.
[56] Zhang L, Yu Z, Li D, Fan L, Zhu Y, Hong R, et al. Enhanced critical heat flux
during quenching of extremely dilute aqueous colloidal suspensions with
graphene oxide nanosheets. J Heat Transfer 2013;135:054502.
[57] Liu J, Wang F, Zhang L, Fang X, Zhang Z. Thermodynamic properties and
thermal stability of ionic liquid-based nanofluids containing graphene as
advanced heat transfer fluids for medium-to-high-temperature applications.
Renew Energy 2014;63:519–23.
[58] Park SS, Kim NJ. Influence of the oxidation treatment and the average particle
diameter of graphene for thermal conductivity enhancement. J Ind Eng Chem
2014;20:1911–5.
[59] Hajjar Z, Rashidi Am, Ghozatloo A. Enhanced thermal conductivities of
graphene oxide nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2014;57:128–31.
[60] Esmaeili Faraj SH, Nasr Esfahany M, Jafari-Asl M, Etesami N. Hydrogen sulfide
bubble absorption enhancement in water-based nanofluids. Ind Eng Chem
Res 2014;53:16851–8.
[61] Li X, Chen Y, Mo S, Jia L, Shao X. Effect of surface modification on the stability
and thermal conductivity of water-based SiO2-coated graphene nanofluid.
Thermochim Acta 2014;595:6–10.
[62] Hadadian M, Goharshadi E, Youssefi A. Electrical conductivity, thermal
conductivity, and rheological properties of graphene oxide-based
nanofluids. J Nanopart Res 2014;16:1–17.
[63] Zubir MNM, Badarudin A, Kazi SN, Huang NM, Misran M, Sadeghinezhad E,
et al. Experimental investigation on the use of reduced graphene oxide and its
hybrid complexes in improving closed conduit turbulent forced convective
heat transfer. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2015;66:290–303.
[64] Kazi SN, Badarudin A, Zubir MNM, Ming HN, Misran M, Sadeghinezhad E,
et al. Investigation on the use of graphene oxide as novel surfactant to
stabilize weakly charged graphene nanoplatelets. Nanoscale Res Lett
2015;10:1–15.
[65] Zubir MN, Badarudin A, Kazi SN, Huang NM, Misran M, Sadeghinezhad E, et al.
Highly dispersed reduced graphene oxide and its hybrid complexes as
effective additives for improving thermophysical property of heat transfer
fluid. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2015;87:284–94.
[66] Asirvatham LG, Wongwises S, Babu J. Heat transfer performance of a glass
thermosyphon using graphene–acetone nanofluid. J Heat Transfer
2015;137:111502.
[67] Mahmudul Haque AKM, Kwon S, Kim J, Noh J, Huh S, Chung H, et al. An
experimental study on thermal characteristics of nanofluid with graphene
and multi-wall carbon nanotubes. J Cent South Univ 2015;22:3202–10.
[68] Li Tong W, Ong W-J, Chai S-P, Tan MK, Mun Hung Y. Enhanced evaporation
strength through fast water permeation in graphene-oxide deposition. Sci
Rep 2015;5:11896.
[69] Fan L-W, Li J-Q, Li D-Y, Zhang L, Yu Z-T, Cen K-F. The effect of concentration on
transient pool boiling heat transfer of graphene-based aqueous nanofluids.
Int J Therm Sci 2015;91:83–95.
[70] Park S-S, Kim YH, Jeon YH, Hyun MT, Kim N-J. Effects of spray-deposited
oxidized multi-wall carbon nanotubes and graphene on pool-boiling critical
heat flux enhancement. J Ind Eng Chem 2015;24:276–83.
[71] Ghozatloo A, Rashidi A, Shariaty-Niassar M. Convective heat transfer
enhancement of graphene nanofluids in shell and tube heat exchanger. Exp
Therm Fluid Sci 2014;53:136–41.
[72] Ma W, Yang F, Shi J, Wang F, Zhang Z, Wang S. Silicone based nanofluids
containing functionalized graphene nanosheets. Colloids Surf, A
2013;431:120–6.
[73] Shende R, Sundara R. Nitrogen doped hybrid carbon based composite
dispersed nanofluids as working fluid for low-temperature direct
absorption solar collectors. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2015;140:9–16.
[74] Mehrali M, Seyed Shirazi SF, Baradaran S, Mehrali M, Metselaar HSC, Kadri
NAB, et al. Facile synthesis of calcium silicate hydrate using sodium dodecyl
sulfate as a surfactant assisted by ultrasonic irradiation. Ultrason Sonochem
2014;21:735–42.
[75] Goharshadi EK, Ding Y, Jorabchi MN, Nancarrow P. Ultrasound-assisted green
synthesis of nanocrystalline ZnO in the ionic liquid [hmim][NTf2]. Ultrason
Sonochem 2009;16:120–3.
[76] Zakaria I, Mohamed WANW, Mamat AMIB, Saidur R, Azmi WH, Mamat R,
et al. Experimental investigation of Al2O3–water ethylene glycol mixture
nanofluid thermal behaviour in a single cooling plate for PEM fuel cell
application. Energy Proc 2015;79:252–8.
[77] Zhang YY, Pei QX, He XQ, Mai YW. A molecular dynamics simulation study on
thermal conductivity of functionalized bilayer graphene sheet. Chem Phys
Lett 2015;622:104–8.
[78] Ratsifaritana CA, Klemens PG. Scattering of phonons by vacancies. Int J
Thermophys 1987;8:737–50.
 E. Sadeghinezhad et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 466–487
[79] Lee J-H, Lee S-H, Choi CJ, Jang SP, Choi SU. A review of thermal conductivity
data, mechanisms and models for nanofluids. Int J Micro-Nano Scale Transp
2010;1:269–322.
[80] Maxwell JC. A treatise on electricity and magnetism. Oxford, UK: Clarendon
press; 1881.
[81] Hamilton R, Crosser O. Thermal conductivity of heterogeneous two-
component systems. Ind Eng Chem Fundam 1962;1:187–91.
[82] Jeffrey DJ. Conduction through a random suspension of spheres. Proc Roy Soc
London A: Math, Phys Eng Sci 1973;335:355–67.
[83] Davis RH. The effective thermal conductivity of a composite material with
spherical inclusions. Int J Thermophys 1986;7:609–20.
[84] Wasp EJ, Kenny JP, Gandhi RL. Solid–liquid flow: slurry pipeline
transportation. [Pumps, valves, mechanical equipment, economics]. Ser
Bulk Mater Handl; (United States) 1977;1(4):224.
[85] Bruggeman D. Dielektrizitatskonstanten und leitfahigkeiten der mishkorper
aus isotropen substanzen. Ann Phys (Leipzig) 1935;24:636–64.
[86] Wang X-Q, Mujumdar AS. A review on nanofluids – part II: experiments and
applications. Braz J Chem Eng 2008;25:631–48.
[87] Sen Gupta S, Manoj Siva V, Krishnan S, Sreeprasad T, Singh PK, Pradeep T,
et al. Thermal conductivity enhancement of nanofluids containing graphene
nanosheets. J Appl Phys 2011;110:084302–84306.
[88] Yang Y, Oztekin A, Neti S, Mohapatra S. Characterization and convective heat
transfer with nanofluids. In: ASME/JSME 2011 8th thermal engineering joint
conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2011. p. T30087-T-6.
[89] Lee G-J, Rhee C. Enhanced thermal conductivity of nanofluids containing
graphene nanoplatelets prepared by ultrasound irradiation. J Mater Sci
2014;49:1506–11.
[90] Xie H, Yu W, Li Y, Chen L. Discussion on the thermal conductivity
enhancement of nanofluids. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011;6:124.
[91] Taha-Tijerina J, Narayanan TN, Gao G, Rohde M, Tsentalovich DA, Pasquali M,
et al. Electrically insulating thermal nano-oils using 2D fillers. ACS Nano
2012;6:1214–20.
[92] Moghimian M, Rahmanian B, Safaei M, Goudarzi M. Numerical investigation
of heat transfer in circular perforated plates exposed to parallel flow and
suction. Int J Adv Des Manuf Technol 2011;1:43–54.
[93] Karimi-Nazarabad M, Goharshadi E, Entezari M, Nancarrow P. Rheological
properties of the nanofluids of tungsten oxide nanoparticles in ethylene
glycol and glycerol. Microfluid Nanofluid 2015;1–12.
487
[94] Ahammed N, Asirvatham L, Wongwises S. Effect of volume concentration and
temperature on viscosity and surface tension of graphene–water nanofluid
for heat transfer applications. J Therm Anal Calorim 2015:1–11.
[95] Sadeghinezhad E, Togun H, Mehrali M, Sadeghi Nejad P, Latibari S Tahan,
Abdulrazzaq T, et al. An experimental and numerical investigation of heat
transfer enhancement for graphene nanoplatelets nanofluids in turbulent
flow conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2015;81:41–51.
[96] Fan J, Wang L. Review of heat conduction in nanofluids. J Heat Transfer
2011;133:040801.
[97] Goldstein RJ, Ibele WE, Patankar SV, Simon TW, Kuehn TH, Strykowski PJ,
et al. Heat transfer—a review of 2005 literature. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
2005;53(2010):4397–447.
[98] Chang T-B. Theoretical analysis of effects of wall suction on entropy
generation rate in laminar condensate layer on horizontal tube. Math Probl
Eng 2014;2014:8.
[99] Ghozatloo A, Shariaty-Niasar M, Rashidi A. Investigation of heat transfer
coefficient of ethylene glycol/graphene nanofluid in turbulent flow regime.
Int J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2014;10:237–44.
[100] Murshed S, Nieto de Castro C, Lourenço M, Lopes M, Santos F. A review of
boiling and convective heat transfer with nanofluids. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2011;15:2342–54.
[101] Rosenow W. A method of correlating heat-transfer data for surface boiling of
liquids. Trans Am Soc Mech Eng 1952;74:969–76.
[102] Zuber N. Hydrodynamic aspects of boiling heat transfer (thesis). California.
Univ., Los Angeles; and Ramo-Wooldridge Corp., Los Angeles; 1959.
[103] Cheedarala RK, Park EJ, Park YB, Park HW. Highly wettable CuO: graphene
oxide core–shell porous nanocomposites for enhanced critical heat flux. Phys
Status Solidi (a) 2015;212:1756–66.
[104] Zhang L, Fan L, Yu Z, Cen K. An experimental investigation of transient pool
boiling of aqueous nanofluids with graphene oxide nanosheets as
characterized by the quenching method. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
2014;73:410–4.
[105] Said Z, Alim MA, Isam J. Exergy efficiency analysis of a flat plate solar collector
using graphene based nanofluid. In: IOP conference series: materials science
and engineering, vol. 92; 2015. p. 012015.
[106] Chaudhry HN, Hughes BR, Ghani SA. A review of heat pipe systems for heat
recovery and renewable energy applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16:2249–59.