Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Review of heat transfer in nanofluids: Conductive, convective

and radiative experimental results
Mauro Lomascolo a,1, Gianpiero Colangelo b,n,1, Marco Milanese b,1, Arturo de Risi b,1
a
Istituto per la Microelettronica e i Microsistemi IMM-CNR, Campus Universitario, Via per Monteroni, 73100 Lecce, Italy
b
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Innovazione, Università del Salento, Via per Monteroni, 73100 Lecce, Italy

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An analytical overview of experimental results about the heat transfer capabilities of nanofluids is
Received 13 September 2013 presented, using widely scattered available information from diverse literature sources. It is shown that,
Received in revised form despite the large number of publications available about this issue, only few studies provide quantitative
13 October 2014
estimates on a complete set of experimental conditions so far and many studies are not coherent.
Accepted 25 November 2014
Bearing in mind this problem, in this study a selection of the most valuable papers has been done, taking
into account different points of view and hypotheses. Even if this work cannot be considered exhaustive
Keywords: of the complete literature in the field of nanofluids, it can be taken into account as a quick reference
Nanofluids guide to have an overview of the different heat transfer phenomena in nanofluids and how the most
Heat transfer
important parameters (size, shape, concentration, materials etc.) influence the expected thermal
Thermal properties
performance of nanofluids.
Optical properties
Conduction & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Convection
Radiation

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1182
2. State of the art: Experimental results and thermal properties of nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1183
2.1. Thermal conductivity of nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1183
2.1.1. The effect of nanoparticle volume concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1184
2.1.2. Effect of material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1184
2.1.3. Effect of nanoparticle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1184
2.1.4. Effect of nanoparticle shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186
2.1.5. Effect of base fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1187
2.1.6. Effect of temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1187
2.1.7. Effect of clustering and of additives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
2.1.8. Effect of pH (acidity of nanofluid). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
2.2. Thermal conductivity of nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
2.2.1. Increase in convective heat transfer in laminar and turbulent flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
2.2.2. Increase in heat transfer in pool boiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1192
2.2.3. Increase in critical heat flux in pool boiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1192
2.2.4. Optical properties of nanoparticles for direct absorption solar thermal energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193
3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1194
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 39 0832297752; fax: þ39 0832297777.
E-mail address: gianpiero.colangelo@unisalento.it (G. Colangelo).
1
All Authors contributed equally.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.086
1364-0321/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198 1183

Nomenclature γ ratio of nanolayer thermal conductivity to particle

thermal conductivity, γ ¼klayer/kp
D diameter of tube (m) ν dynamic viscosity
L length of tube (m) ρ density (kg/m3)
d diameter of particles (nm) φ volume fraction of nanoparticles in suspension
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K) ψ particle sphericity
k thermal conductivity (W/m K)
kB Boltzmann constant (kB ¼1.381  10  23 J/K) Subscripts
Nu Nusselt number (Nu ¼hD/k)
Pe Peclet number (Pe¼ ρμL/Γ) b base fluid
Pr Prandtl number (Pr ¼Cpμ/k) 0 basic fluid
Re Reynolds number (Re¼ ρVD/μ) cl cluster of particles
T temperature (K) e embedded
x coordinate eff effective
m matrix
Greek symbols in inner tube
nf nanofluid
α aspect ratio of nanoparticles out outer tube
β ratio of the nanolayer thickness to the original particle pe modified nanoparticle
radius, β ¼ h/r p nanoparticle

1. Introduction processes that require highly efficient heat transfer, have rapidly
become the object of research for several industrial applications and
Many industrial processes involve heat transfer either as energy the driving force has been the development of nanotechnologies
input in complex systems, or as energy output produced by systems [2,3]: this statement is confirmed by the increasing number of
itself and which needs to be removed by means of cooling devices. publications covering this field (Fig. 1.2).
In particular the problem of the removal of heat and/or the The present review is intended to be a useful guide for
temperature control has become crucial in some critical applica- researchers who wants to have a quick overview about the main
tions involving high heat fluxes: nuclear fission plants, systems for results available in the scientific literature in the field of heat
materials melting, systems for micro/nano power electronics such transfer in nanofluids so far. In particular, this work deals with the
as Micro/Nano Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS/NEMS), systems most important experimental results obtained in the scientific
for transportation, installations for cooling, etc. community for conduction, convection and radiation in nano-
In general the heat transfer takes place by means of a laminar fluids. In particular the analysis has been made to identify the
or turbulent flow of a suitable heat transfer fluid, typically air, influence of different parameters on the expected results and/or
water, mineral oil, ethylene glycol, but also other heat-carriers performance thus to evaluate the pros and cons of the application
such as organic-based fluids. In these processes both temperature of nanofluids in a specific field.
and pressure cover a wide range of values. Such applications
would certainly benefit if the heat-transfer thermal resistance of
the used cooling fluids could decrease, resulting in realization of a
2. State of the art: Experimental results and thermal
reduced dissipation systems, compared to those used today, less
properties of nanofluids
expensive and more efficient.
In order to increase the fluid heat transfer coefficient, many
2.1. Thermal conductivity of nanofluids
efforts have been done upon heat transfer fluid, properties of
surfaces (extension, shape, roughness, etc.) and fluid motion (laminar
The quantities, which characterize aptitude for heat transfer in
vs. turbulent).
laminar or turbulent flows of liquid are the Nusselt and Prandtl
The most important intrinsic limitation consists in the relatively
numbers, which depend on the thermal conductivity of a fluid.
low thermal conductivity of conventional fluids. For instance, water
has the highest thermal conductivity among all the fluids most
commonly used today, although it is only equal to 0.6 W/m K at
room temperature, and that is several orders of magnitude lower
than the thermal conductivity of metals, solid metal oxides and
Single Walled Carbon Nanotube (SWCNT) (see Fig. 1.1).
It is therefore reasonable to envisage a composite fluid obtained
by adding appropriate solid particles to conventional heat transfer
fluids, with the aim of increasing the total thermal conductivity. The
first attempts with millimetric and micrometric particles were
unsuccessful, mainly because of the poor stability of suspensions
and problems related to viscosity and flow in pipes of plants.
These problems have recently been partially overcome with the
introduction of a new concept: the nanofluid.
Nanofluids are diluted suspensions of nanoparticles with a
diameter of less than 100 nm. Such innovative materials, conceived
in 1995 (Choi et al. [1]) to increase thermal conductivity in Fig. 1.1. Thermal conductivity of most commonly used heat-transfer materials.
1184 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198

Therefore, to study the potential heat transfer of a fluid, its 2.1.1. The effect of nanoparticle volume concentration
thermal conductivity must be known. The effect of nanoparticle volume concentration on thermal
As a consequence thermal conductivity (k) [4] and convective conductivity increase in nanofluids has been studied for a wide
heat transfer coefficient (h) [5] are the most investigated para- range of base fluids. In particular, in Figs. 2.1 and 2.2, the acquired
meters in literature. results for k increase in nanofluids, with alumina (Al2O3) [6–13]
Increase in thermal conductivity (thermal conductivity enhance- and copper oxide (CuO) [7,8,10,12,14,15,16] nanoparticles, dis-
ment ratio) refers to the ratio between thermal conductivity of persed in water, are shown.
nanofluid and thermal conductivity of base fluid. Such a ratio is Although the size of nanoparticle varies in the different
indicated in a variety of equivalent ways: experiments, it can be seen that the general trend is fairly clear:
increase in thermal conductivity is larger with the increase in
Increase ¼knf/kf; ke/km; kp/km; keff/kb; k/k0 etc. nanoparticle volume concentration.
Often reported as a percentage: 100  (knf kf)/kf In some cases the increase was non-linear (Murshed et al. [17],
Palabiyik et al. [18]).
Recently, some authors have studied the effects of prolonged
The increase in conductivity has been studied according to ultrasonication on nanofluids, finding an increment of thermal
variations in the following parameters: conductivity, with respect to the previous works (Kole and Dey
[19], Ismaya et al. [20]).
(i) nanoparticle volume concentration;
(ii) nanoparticle material;
(iii) nanoparticle size; 2.1.2. Effect of material
(iv) nanoparticle shape; The effect of nanoparticles material on thermal conductivity of
(v) base fluid; nanofluid is shown in Fig. 2.3(a) for oxides dispersed in water: all
(vi) temperature; the other parameters are virtually constant [7,8,10,21]. For this
(vii) additives; kind of oxides, characterized by low thermal conductivity, the
(viii) acidity. effect of material is negligible.
The situation changes when materials with high thermal
conductivity, such as metals, are used. In Fig. 2.3(b) metal particles
(Fe, Cu) are compared with an oxide (Al2O3) dispersed in ethylene
glycol [9,22,23]. It should be noted that the metal particles,
considered in the experiments, produce the same increase in
thermal conductivity (about 18%), with a very low volume con-
centration (one order of magnitude) compared to the oxide: 0.5%
of metals as opposed to 5% of the oxide.

2.1.3. Effect of nanoparticle size

Fig. 1.2. Number of JCR articles per year, as reported by Journal of Citation Report,
Web of science http://pcs.isiknowledge.com, from 1997 and updated for the whole
of 2013 retrieved via the key word “nanofluids” in the topic of the paper.
The effect of nanoparticle size on thermal properties of nano-
fluids is still today a question which is far from being answered. In
this respect, the results reported in the literature are contradictory,
even taking into account the quite different experimental condi-
tions in which the experiments have been carried out. In fact, for
the water-based Al2O3 nanofluid, which is one of the most
investigated nanofluid, thermal conductivity seems to increase as
nanoparticle size increases, but its trend, however, is not mono-
tonic with increasing size range, as can be observed in the
experiments [7–10,24] reported in Fig. 2.4.
Analogous results are seen for ethylene glycol-based Al2O3.

Fig. 2.1. ke/k0 As a function of volume concentration, for Al2O3-based nanofluids. Open symbols-continuous lines represent data recorded in similar experimental conditions.
 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198
Fig. 2.2. ke/k0 As a function of volume concentration, for CuO-based nanofluids. Open symbols-continuous lines represent data recorded in similar experimental conditions.
Fig. 2.3. ke/k0 As a function of volume concentration, for various nanofluids. Role of
materials used for synthesis of nanoparticle: (a) comparison of several metal oxides
and SiC; (b) comparison of several metal oxide-based nanofluids and metal
particles.
Another recent systematic study of nanofluid thermal conduc-
tivity as a function of nanoparticle size has been undertaken by
Beck et al. [25], both for water-based Al2O3 and for ethylene glycol-
based Al2O3. The particles were varied within the range 8–282 nm.
Furthermore HCl was added to the nanofluid to obtain an acidity
of pH ¼4.
The measurements of thermal conductivity were obtained
using a transient hot-wire method at room temperature. It is
observed that, for the same volume concentration, the increase of
thermal conductivity diminishes with decrease in size and the
effect is more marked in particles smaller than 50 nm.
1185
Fig. 2.4. ke/k0 As a function of volume concentration, for Al2O3–water. Role of
nanoparticle size.
These results are, however, in contradiction with a study by
Mintsa et al. [26], who measured the thermal conductivity of a
water-based Al2O3 nanofluid (see Table 2.1). According to this
study, the increase in thermal conductivity is approximately the
same at ambient temperature for the two studied sizes, while, at
high temperatures, smaller particles produce a larger increase in
nanofluid thermal conductivity.
Nisha and Philip [27] have studied the effect of nanoparticle size
on thermal conductivity of polymeric and water based nanofluids
following thermal wave interference technique. Particularly, two sets
of TiO2 nanofluids, in polyvinyl alcohol and water, show opposing
particle size dependences. The variations are explained invoking
effective medium theory, including size of nanoparticles, molecular
weight of base fluid and effects associated with it.
In other experimental studies, a very clear trend can instead be
observed: the increase in nanofluid thermal conductivity is larger
with the decrease in nanoparticle size (Chopkar et al. [28,29],
Colangelo et al. [30]). Finally it is important to relate the study of
Feng et al. [31], which shows that the effect of clustering is much
more pronounced in nanofluids composed of smaller nanoparti-
cles. This may explain why in some studies a smaller increase in
thermal conductivity has been observed when smaller nanoparti-
cles are used.
Notwithstanding the fact that the results are not conclusive, the
general trend is that increase in nanofluid thermal conductivity is
larger with decrease in nanoparticle size.
1186 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198

Table 2.1
Summary of experimental results on increase in nanofluid thermal conductivity.

a)
Particle type Base fluid Particle volume Particle size (nm) Maximum Notes
fraction (%) b) enhancement (%)

Masuda et al. [6] Al2O3 Water 1.30–4.30 13 32.4 31.85–86.85 1C

SiO2 Water 1.10–2.40 12 1.1
TiO2 Water 3.10–4.30 27 10.8
Lee et al. [7] Al2O3 Water/EG 1.00–4.30/1.00–5.00 38.4 10/18 Ambient temperature
CuO Water/EG 1.00–3.41/1.00–4.00 23.6 12/23
Wang et al. [8] Al2O3 Water/EG 3.00–5.50/5.00–8.00 28 16/41 Ambient temperature
Al2O3 EO/PO 2.25–7.40/5.00–7.10 28 30/20
CuO Water/EG 4.50–9.70/6.20–14.80 23 34/54
Eastman et al. [22] Cu EG 0.01–0.56 o 10 41 Ambient temperature
Xie et al. [21] SiC Water/EG 0.78–4.18/0.89–3.50 26 Sphere 17/13 Effect of shape and size
SiC Water/EG 1.00–4.00 600 Cylinder 24/23 is examined
Xie et al. [36] Al2O3 Water/EG 5.00 60.4 23/29 Ambient temperature
Al2O3 PO/glycerol 5.00 60.4 38/27
Das et al. [10] Al2O3 Water 1.00–4.00 38.4 24 21–51 1C
CuO Water 1.00–4.00 28.6 36
Murshed et al. [17] TiO2 Water 0.50–5.00 15 Sphere 30 Ambient temperature
TiO2 Water 0.50–5.00 10  40 Rod 33
Hong et al. [47] Fe EG 0.10–0.55 10 18 Investigated effect of clustering
Li and Peterson [12] Al2O3 Water 2.00–10.00 36 29 27.5–34.7 1C
CuO Water 2.00–6.00 29 51 28.9–33.4 1C
Chopkar et al. [29] Al2Cu Water/EG 1.00–2.00 31/68/101 96/76/61 Effect of particle size
Al2Al Water/EG 1.00–2.00 33/80/120 106/93/75
Beck et al. [25] Al2O3 Water 1.86–4.00 8–282 20 Effect of particle size
Al2O3 EG 2.00–3.01 12–282 19
Mintsa et al. [26] Al2O3 Water 0–18 36/47 31/31 20–48 1C
CuO Water 0–16 29 24
Turgut et al. [39] TiO2 Water 0.2–3.0 21 7.4 13–55 1C
Chon et al. [53] Al2O3 Water 1 11/47/150 9/3/0.4 21 1C
Al2O3 Water 1 11/47/150 15/10/9 71 1C
Al2O3 Water 4 47 8 21 1C
Al2O3 Water 4 47 29 71 1C
Liu et al. [54] Cu Water 0.05 – 4 Ambient temperature
Cu Water 0.05 100/200 12
Cu Water 0.10 50/100 24
Cu Water 0.10 100/300 11
Cu Water 0.20 130/300 10
Cu Water 0.20 250 4
Cu Water 0.20 200  500 13
Choi et al. [55] MWCNT PAO 0.04–1.02 25  50,000 57 Ambient temperature
Marquis et al. [56] SWCNT Diesel oil 0.25/1.00 (10–50)  (0.3–10) μm 10/46 Ambient temperature
MWCNT PAO 0.25/1.00 (20–300)  (1–100) μm 30/117
MWCNT PAO 1.00 (10–50)  (0.3–10) μm 183
Yang et al. [57] MWCNT PAO 0.04/0.34 – 6/300 Ambient temperature
Assael et al. [48] DWCNT Water 0.75–1.00 5 (Diameter) 8 Effect of sonication
MWCNT Water 0.60 130  10,000 34 Examined time
Liu et al. [58] MWCNT EG/EO 0.20–1.00/1.00–2.00 20–50 Diameter 12/30 Ambient temperature
Ding et al. [41] MWCNT Water 0.05–0.49 40 (Diameter) 79 20–30 1C

a
EG ethylene glycol, EO engine oil, PO pump oil, PAO polyalphaolefin.
b
Percentage values indicated according to the expression 100  (keff  kf)/>kf.

2.1.4. Effect of nanoparticle shape
In the research of nanofluids, essentially two shapes of nano-
particles have been largely investigated: spherical and cylindrical.
In this respect, carbon nanotubes can be conceived as cylinders,
with a height much greater than their base diameter.
In Fig. 2.5 the results of a study by Xie et al. [21], in which they
examine the effect of shape on nanofluids composed by sphe-
rical (d¼ 26 nm) and cylindrical (d¼600 nm) nanoparticles dispersed
in ethylene glycol and in distilled water, are shown. The key result
is that, other parameters being equal, cylindrical particles display
a higher increase in nanofluid thermal conductivity: 23% for cylind-
rical ones against 15% for spheres (for a volume concentration of
about 4%).
Similar results were obtained by Murshed et al. [17] using TiO2
nanoparticles dispersed in deionized water. In this work, the
nanoparticles were spherical (d ¼15 nm) and rod-like (mean size
d ¼10 nm and l¼ 40 nm). To improve stability and increase
dispersion, oleic acid and an organic surfactant (cetyl-trimethy-
lammonium bromide CTAB) were used. For spherical nanoparticles
a maximum increase of 29.7% was obtained as opposed to 32.8%
for rods at the same volume concentration of about 5%.
From these results, and taking into account that nanofluids
with carbon nanotubes show a higher increase in thermal con-
ductivity than those with spherical nanoparticles, we can conclude
that nanofluids produced with cylindrical or elongated nanopar-
ticles, show a higher increase in conductivity than nanofluids
produced with spherical particles of the same material. One
possible explanation for this phenomenon may be related to the
high thermal conductivity in the elongated or longitudinal direc-
tion which can be higher than transversal one.
On the other hand, however, cylindrical nanoparticles are more
difficult to synthesize and considerably increase nanofluid viscos-
ity (Timofeeva et al. [32]), and, as a consequence, require more
pumping power, which hinders in practice their application.
 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198
Fig. 2.5. ke/k0 As a function of volume concentration, for SiC–water (open symbols-
dashed line) and SiC–ethylene glycol (closed symbols-straight line). Role of
nanoparticle shape.
Fig. 2.6. ke/k0 As a function of volume concentration, for various nanofluids. Role of
base fluid.
2.1.5. Effect of base fluid
According to conventional thermal conductivity models
(Maxwell [33]), as thermal conductivity of the base fluid of a
mixture decreases, the kmixture/kf ratio increases. When the mixture
becomes a nanofluid, the situation becomes more complex
because of several phenomena which can influence the nanofluid
thermal conductivity (e.g. Brownian motion, Xuan et al. [34]).
Furthermore Lee [35] has examined the effect on thermal con-
ductivity of the bilayer, which is formed around the nanoparticle
and has showed that both thermal conductivity and thickness of
the bilayer depend on the base fluid.
Various studies have reported on this subject. For example
Fig. 2.6 shows the results obtained by Xie et al. [36] studying
nanofluids prepared with Al2O3 nanoparticles (d¼ 60 nm) dis-
persed in deionized water, ethylene glycol, and oil. Xie has also
studied the effect with glycerin.
Studies show that the increase in thermal conductivity (k)nf/kf
is lower when base fluid thermal conductivity increases: increase
of knf/kf is higher for base fluids with worse thermal conductivity.
Finally we cite the studies of Chopkar et al. [29] in which the
effect of base fluid (water and ethylene glycol) on spherical Al2Cu
and Ag2Al particles has been investigated. It has been seen that
water-based nanofluids show a higher increase in the knf/kf ratio.
In particular, there has been observed an increase of over 100% in
1187
Fig. 2.7. ke/k0 As a function of volume concentration, for various nanofluids. Role of
temperature: water-based Al2O3 (open symbols-dashed line); water-based CuO
(closed symbols-straight line).
the case of Ag2Al nanoparticles (d ¼30 nm) dispersed in water
with a volume concentration of 2%.
2.1.6. Effect of temperature
In general, in a conventional suspension (fluid plus milli/
micrometric particles), thermal conductivity is more sensitive to
variations in temperature than the base fluid.
In the case of a nanofluid, however, variation in temperature
dramatically influences Brownian motion and clustering of nano-
particles, modifying the value of thermal conductivity (Li et al.
[37]). Despite the effect of temperature has been a largely studied
in literature, by testing several kind of nanofluids, the results
reported are very inhomogeneous due to the inhomogeneity of the
other parameters involved in the experiments (size, material, base
fluid, temperature range, etc.), and often the experimental data
appear contradictory.
In any case, there are no data for the increase in nanofluid
thermal conductivity at temperatures above 90 1C (see Table 2.1
for a summary of results).
The general trend, observed in the literature, is that increase in
nanofluid thermal conductivity (knf/kf) is higher with an increase
in temperature.
Das et al. [10] have measured the relationship between thermal
conductivity and temperature for nanofluids based on Al2O3
(d¼38.4 nm)–water and on CuO (d¼28.6 nm)–water (see Fig. 2.7).
Temperature was varied in experiments from 21 1C to 51 1C. From
experiments, it emerges that, for an Al2O3–water nanofluid with a
volume concentration of 1%, the thermal conductivity increase goes
from 2% recorded at 21 1C to 10.8%, recorded at 51 1C. The increase
becomes even greater for the volume concentration of 4%, going
from 9.4%, recorded at 21 1C to 24.3%, recorded at 51 1C. For both
volume concentrations, the dependence between increase in knf/kf
and temperature has turned out to be linear. Analogous considera-
tions are found in CuO-based nanofluids (Fig. 2.7).
An analogous study was carried out by Li and Peterson [12] on a
water-based CuO nanofluid (d ¼29 nm) and a water-based Al2O3
(d ¼36 nm) nanofluid. See Fig. 2.8.
Even in this case, a (linear) increase of ke/k0 has been observed
as temperature rises, but, in addition, temperature dependence
becomes more pronounced at higher particle volume concentrations.
Recently, TiO2 and Al2O3 nanoparticles were suspended in base
fluids (water and 20/80 by mass of an ethylene glycol–water
mixture) with concentration of 0–8 vol%, at temperature of
1188 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198
Fig. 2.8. ke/k0 As a function of volume concentration, for various nanofluids. Role of
temperature. Analogously to preceding figure: water-based Al2O3 (open symbols-
dashed line); water-based CuO (closed symbols-straight line).
15–65 1C (Yiamsawasda et al. [38]). In this study an increase of
ke/k0 has been observed as temperature rises as well.
Turgut et al. [39] have measured the thermal conductivity of
TiO2 (d ¼21 nm)/deionized water, by a 3ω technique, at various
temperatures: 13, 23, 40 and 55 1C, at volume concentrations
ranging between 0.2% and 3%.
Experiments show that:
i) thermal conductivity can be described using a classic [40];
ii) the knf/kf ratio does not vary significantly with nanofluid
temperature, in partial disagreement with what is generally
stated in the literature.
The only experiments in which an opposite trend is clearly
observed namely a decrease in the knf/kf ratio as temperature rises,
are those conducted by Masuda et al. [6] on nanofluids composed
of Al2O3–water, TiO2–water and SiO2–water, as shown in more
detail in Table 2.1. It should be noted that in these experiments
Masuda did not use particles stabilized with organic surfactants.
This may explain the anomalous behavior and, at the same time,
underline the importance of the chemical environment that
surrounds the particle during these experiments.
Analogous experiments have been conducted on carbon
nanotube-based nanofluids with altogether analogous results to
those reported previously (e.g. Ding et al. [41]).
In addition to the work commented upon in detail, there exist
numerous other studies that discuss the influence of temperature
on thermal conductivity (see for example Zang et al. [42,43], Roy
et al. [44] and Murshed et al. [45]).
On the other hand, some studies have shown different results
on the dependence between temperature and thermal conductiv-
ity. In fact, thermal conductivity of propylene glycol-based nano-
fluids containing Al2O3 and TiO2 nanoparticles was studied in the
temperature range of 20–80 1C, by Palabiyik et al. [46], finding
that thermal conductivity enhancement for both studied nano-
fluids was a nonlinear function of concentration and temperature
independent.
2.1.7. Effect of clustering and of additives
Clustering of nanoparticles is always present in nanofluids and
constitutes, de facto, one of the effective parameters that deter-
mine proprieties.
Hong et al. [47] studied the effect of clustering on ethylene glycol-
based Fe nanofluids (d¼10 nm). In particular, Hong measured
Fig. 2.9. ke/k0 As a function of volume concentration, for various nanofluids. Role of
additives. Cu in Ethylene glycol and thioglycolic acid (square symbols); MWCNT in
water (circle symbols).
nanofluid thermal conductivity as a function of exposure time of
the nanofluid to ultrasonic vibrations, in the range of 0–70 min.
The results show that knf/kf ratio increases with increasing sonication
time and it stabilizes at a limited saturation value. Moreover,
experiments show that:
i) thermal conductivity of the nanofluid decreases over time once
it has been allowed to settle after sonication, suggesting that
once the vibrations stop, the effect of clustering recurs;
ii) the mean size of clusters increases over time, once sonication
ceases.
These results suggest that clustering plays a very important
role in determining the thermal properties of nanofluids. This
conclusion is supported by experiments performed on ethylene
glycol-based Fe nanofluids (d ¼10 nm), which show a non linear
increase in thermal conductivity with volume concentration
essentially due to nanoparticles clustering, whose effects become
dominant at high volume concentration.
The addition of additives to the nanofluid or the use of
appropriate surfactants (capping) during nanoparticle synthesis
improves both solubility and suspension of nanoparticles limiting
the occurrence of clustering phenomena. Notwithstanding the
results reported in literature are rather dispersed over a wide
range of values, they indicate that the use of additives produces an
increase in nanofluid thermal conductivity.
This is shown in Fig. 2.9, where the results of two different
studies are reported for comparison. In particular Eastman et al.
[22] have measured the effect on ethylene glycol-based Cu nano-
fluid with the addition of thioglycolic acid (TGA); Assael et al. [48]
used a water-based MWCNT nanofluid with the addition of cetyl-
trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB).
Recently, Lotfizadeh Dehkordi et al. [49] have investigated the
effect on the thermal conductivity of Sodium dodeobcylbenzene
sulfonate (SDBS) dispersed in a ethylene glycol-water (mass ratio
60:40) base fluid, when low volume concentration (0.01–1.0%) of
Al2O3 nanoparticles are included to form the nanofluid. The effect
of SBDS on dispersion and stability of nanoparticles in the base
fluid has also been studied.
The results show that low concentration of SBDS dispersant has
almost no influence on thermal conductivity of EG–W. However,
reduction of thermal conductivity is observed at higher concen-
tration of SDBS dispersant, likely due to change in the fluide
structure (foam and bubbles). Similar results have been also
obtained by Wang et al. [50].
 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198
Fig. 2.10. ke/k0 As a function of volume concentration, for various nanofluids. Role
of pH. Right side: Al2O3 60 nm NP in water; left side CuO 25 nm NPs in water.
2.1.8. Effect of pH (acidity of nanofluid)
Among all the parameters which influence nanofluid thermal
conductivity, pH value (of acidity) is surely the least studied. In
general, studies show that increase in thermal conductivity is
lower when nanofluid pH increases. Furthermore, the rate of
increase as a function of volume concentration depends on the
nanofluid pH, suggesting that an optimal pH value for producing
the maximum effect on knf/kf ratio exists.
Fig. 2.10 shows two studies by Xie et al. [9] on Al2O3–water
nanofluids of various pH values, and by Lee et al. [14] which
investigates CuO–water nanofluids of two pH values (3 and 6).
In particular Xie explains the dependence of thermal conduc-
tivity on the solution pH, assuming that an increase in difference
between isoelectric point of the Al2O3 particle and pH value of the
solution increases the mobility of particles, which, as a conse-
quence, increases the micro-convection effect of heat. The iso-
electric point (abbreviated as pI or IEP) is the pH value at which
the nanoparticle or a particular surface does not transport a net
electric charge.
Another interesting study was carried out by Wang et al. [50]
and regards the effect of an additive (Sodium dodecylbenzenesul-
fonate NaDBS) on the thermal conductivity of Cu–water and
Al2O3–water nanofluids. In particular, an optimal pH value of
8.0 for Al2O3–water and 9.5 for Cu–water was found for the
maximum increase in knf/kf ratio. It deserves to be stressed that
base fluid thermal conductivity does not vary appreciably with pH.
These results could be related to an increase, at the optimal pH
value, of the nanoparticle surface charge, which in turn enhances
the mutal repulsion, increasing mobility and limiting nanoparti-
cles clustering.
Other studies on the effect of pH on TiO2–water nanofluids,
with analogous results to those discussed above, are examined by
Murshed et al. [51] and by Ismaya et al. [52].
Ultimately, pH value has a determinant effect on nanofluid
thermal conductivity, due principally to change in nanoparticle
surface charge.
Furthermore, the use of additives and surfactants inevitability
modifies nanofluid pH value. But its value is generally not
measured and/or reported in the experiment discussion and this
may account for the observed discrepancies in the thermal
conductivity data.
In Table 2.1 summarized the experimental results reported by
the principal research groups, in order to make them as homo-
geneous as possible. This is not always easy because some groups
often omit some crucial parameters (e.g. operating temperature,
diameter of particles or size of carbon nanotubes).
1189
2.2. Thermal conductivity of nanofluids
Undoubtedly, the parameter which best of all characterizes the
nanofluid for some specific applications, such as the design of heat
exchangers, is the convective heat transfer coefficient h [W/m2 K],
whose increase can generally be larger than increase in the
thermal conductivity of the nanofluid itself.
In this respect it becomes very crucial to determine or measure
such coefficient directly in the typical flow conditions of the
application for which nanofluid is conceived [59].
Notwithstanding, only few papers have been reported in the
literature on this issue and the results are often unhomogeneous,
both for what concerns the boundary conditions of the experi-
ments and the way in which results are presented. Indeed, even in
the cases where experimental conditions are similar, some groups
report the ratio between the convective heat transfer coefficient
(h) he/hm as a function of the Reynolds number, others report the
Nusselt number ratio Nue/Num as a function of the Reynolds
number or of the Peclet number.
Discussion of increase in convective heat transfer coefficient is
subdivided according to the flow conditions: laminar vs. turbulent;
increase at boiling point in stagnant liquid (pool boiling); increase
of critical heat flux in pool boiling.
In Table 2.2 the most important results have been reported.
2.2.1. Increase in convective heat transfer in laminar and turbulent
flow
In Fig. 2.11(a) we show the results of a study by Wen and Ding
[60] in which the increase in convective heat transfer coefficient, for
an Al2O3–water nanofluid (d¼42 nm) in conditions of laminar flow
up until the transition to turbulence, is investigated. The increase in
Nusselt number of the nanofluid is reported in respect to the Nusselt
number of base fluid as a function of Reynolds number.
In particular, the convective heat transfer coefficient increases
with the volume concentration of alumina nanoparticles, as in the
case of thermal conductivity.
As shown in Fig. 2.11(a), the increase in thermal conductivity
coefficient is around 40% while the increase in thermal conductiv-
ity for the same nanofluid is less than 15%. This important result is
observed by all the research groups: increase in the convective
coefficient of a nanofluid is higher, in general, than expected if
only increase in the thermal conductivity coefficient has been
taken into consideration. Some researchers attribute this fact to
vaguely defined fluid-nanoparticle interaction.
The results in Fig. 2.11(a) shows that there is no dependence
between the increase in the ratio of Nusselt numbers and Reynolds
numbers.
Fig. 2.11(b) reports on an analogue study carried out by Heris et al.
[61] on a water-based Al2O3 nanofluid (d¼20 nm) at different volume
concentrations. The increase in thermal conductivity coefficient is
significantly higher when volume concentration increases, in particu-
lar when it is over 2%; the obtained results are consistent with those
reported by Wen and Ding [60] in the previous figures.
This fact is coherent with the increase in thermal conductivity
as a function of the nanoparticle volume concentration and again
the increase in convective coefficient is higher than the observed
one for thermal conductivity.
Finally, it should be noted that for volume concentrations above
2%, an increase in Reynolds numbers acts positively on increase in
heat transfer coefficient.
In the same study, Heris et al. [61] investigated, for comparison,
another water-based CuO nanofluid (d ¼55 nm) at various volume
concentrations (in the 0.2–3.0% range). The results are shown in
Fig. 2.12, in which the Nue/Num ratio is given as a function of the
Peclet number.
1190 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198

Table 2.2
Summary of experimental results of increase in thermal conductivity coefficient (Single-Phase) of nanofluids.

Particle Base fluid Volume Particle Enhancement Notes

type fraction (%) size (nm) ratio

Pak and Cho [68] Al2O3 Water pH¼ 3 1.34 13 1.07–1.30 Two-step method. 10.66 mm stainless steel
Al2O3 Water pH¼ 3 2.78 13 1.24–1.35 tube. Turbulent flow, increase in the Nusselt
TiO2 Water pH¼ 10 0.99 27 0.93–1.09 number, Re¼ 104–105
TiO2 Water pH¼ 10 2.04 27 0.98–1.16
TiO2 Water pH¼ 10 3.16 27 1.07–1.20
Putra et al. [71] Al2O3 Water (L/D¼ 0.5) 1.00 131.2 0.85–1.02 Two-step method. Horizontal cylinder.
Al2O3 Water (L/D¼ 1.0) 1.00 131.2 0.87–1.04 Natural convection.
Al2O3 Water (L/D¼ 0.5) 4.00 131.2 0.70–0.85 Dependence from L/D. Decrease in the
Nusselt number
Al2O3 Water (L/D¼ 1.0) 4.00 131.2 0.63–0.82 Re¼ 2.45  106–3.15  107
Al2O3 Water (L/D¼ 1.5) 4.00 131.2 0.75–0.85
CuO Water (L/D¼ 1.0) 1.00 87.3 0.79–0.93
CuO Water (L/D¼ 1.0) 4.00 87.3 0.54–0.67
Xuan and Li [34] Cu Water 0.30 o 100 0.99–1.05 Two-step method
Cu Water 0.50 o 100 1.01–1.08 10 mm brass tube. Turbulent flow. Increase
Cu Water 0.80 o 100 1.07–1.13 in the Nusselt
number
Cu Water 1.00 o 100 1.13–1.15 Re¼ 9800–23,600
Cu Water 1.20 o 100 1.14–1.21
Cu Water 1.50 o 100 1.23–1.27
Cu Water 2.00 o 100 1.25–1.35
Wen and Ding [60] Al2O3 Water–NaDBS (x/D ¼ 63) 0.60 42 1.04–1.12 Two-step method
4.5 mm copper tube. Laminar flow
Al2O3 Water–NaDBS (x/D ¼ 63) 1.00 42 1.09–1.22 Effect of x/D ratio
Al2O3 Water–NaDBS (x/D ¼ 63) 1.60 42 1.25–1.38 Increase in the Nusselt number Re¼710–
Al2O3 Water–NaDBS (x/ 0.60 42 1.10–1.20 19,400
D ¼ 116)
Al2O3 Water–NaDBS (x/ 1.00 42 1.12–1.20
D ¼ 116)
Al2O3 Water–NaDBS (x/ 1.60 42 1.26–1.35
D ¼ 116)
Wen and Ding TiO2 Electrostatic water- 0.19 34 0.85–0.98 Two-step method. Short vertical cylinder.
[72,73] repulsion Natural convection.
TiO2 pH¼ 3 (HNO3 and 0.35 34 0.77–0.95 Increase in the Nusselt number
TiO2 NaOH) 0.57 34 0.64–0.87 Re¼ 23,000–224,000
Heris et al. [61] Al2O3 Water 0.20 20 1.04–1.10 Two-step method
6 mm Copper tube
Laminar flow

Constant wall temperature

Increase in the Nusselt number

Re¼ 650–2050
Al2O3 Water 1.00 20 1.12–1.19 Pe¼ 2400–6800
Al2O3 Water 2.00 20 1.13–1.31
Al2O3 Water 2.50 20 1.12–1.38
Al2O3 Water 3.00 20 1.08–1.41
CuO Water 0.20 50–60 1.02–1.11
CuO Water 1.00 50–60 1.06–1.20
CuO Water 2.00 50–60 1.03–1.27
CuO Water 2.50 50–60 1.02–1.36
CuO Water 3.00 50–60 1.02–1.38
Yang et al. [63] Graphite Transfer fluid 50 1C 0.77 1000– 0.97–1.02 Two-step method
2000  20– 4.57 mm tube
Graphite Transfer fluid 70 1C 0.77 40 0.97–1.03 Laminar flow
Graphite Transfer fluid 50 1C 0.97 1.21–1.31 Effect of temperature. Wall temperature
constant
Graphite Transfer fluid 70 1C 0.97 1.14–1.29 Increase in HTC (Heat Transfer Coefficient)
Graphite Mixture of 2 oils 50 1C 0.75 0.99–1.05 Re¼ 800–1200
Graphite Mixture of 2 oils 70 1C 0.75 1.01–1.05
Graphite Mixture of 2 oils 50 1C 0.75 1.05–1.15
Graphite Mixture of 2 oils 70 1C 0.75 1.05–1.13
Williams et al. [74] ZrO2 Water 0.9–3.6 46–60 – Turbulent flow
Considerable increase HTC
0.2–0.9 Re¼ 9000–63,000
Faulkner et al. [67] MWCNT Water–NaDBS 1.10 1.01–4.69 Two-step method
(q″ ¼ 0.1 W/cm2) Micro-channel, Dh ¼355 μm
MWCNT Water–NaDBS 1.10 0.48–1.99 Laminar flow
(q″ ¼ 0.5 W/cm2)
MWCNT Water–NaDBS 2.20 1.93–2.21 Effect due to heat flow. Wall temperature
(q″ ¼ 0.1 W/cm2) constant
Increase in HTC
MWCNT Water–NaDBS 2.20 1.17–1.63 Re¼ 2–17
(q″ ¼ 0.5 W/cm2)
 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198 1191

Table 2.2 (continued )

Particle Base fluid Volume Particle Enhancement Notes

type fraction (%) size (nm) ratio

MWCNT Water–NaDBS 4.40 1.20–1.71

(q″ ¼ 0.1 W/cm2)
MWCNT Water–NaDBS 4.40 0.90–1.19
(q″ ¼ 0.5 W/cm2)
MWCNT Water–nanosphere 4.40 0.86–1.51
(q″ ¼ 0.1 W/cm2)
MWCNT Water–nanosphere 4.40 0.81–1.08
(q″ ¼ 0.5 W/cm2)

EG ethylene glycol, EO engine oil, PO pump oil, PAO polyalphaolefin, NaDBS Sodium Dodecylbenzene Sulphonate.

Fig. 2.12. Nue/Nu0 as a function of Peclet number for CuO–water (d¼ 55 nm) for
various volume concentrations.

weak dependence on temperature, even if the temperature con-

Fig. 2.11. (a) Nue/Nu0 as a function of Reynolds number, for Al2O3 (d ¼ 42 nm)–
water for various flow conditions. (b) Nue/Nu0 as a function of Peclet number for
Al2O3 (d ¼ 20 nm)–water at different volume concentrations.
This study suggests that the shape and type of oxide do not
appreciably influence the convective heat transfer coefficient
because, both analyzed nanofluids, namely Al2O3–water (d¼ 20 nm)
and CuO–water (d¼55 nm), present the same increase of the order
of 40%. However, further experiments are needed to fully support
this statement.
Other studies have been carried out by various groups with
analogous results among which we cite: Xuan and Li [62], Yang
et al. [63], Ma et al. [64], Chen et al. [65], Kulkarni et al. [66].
In particular, Yang et al. [63] studied a graphite-based nanofluid
dispersed in low volume concentrations (0.75–0.97%), at two
different temperatures (50 1C and 70 1C). The study confirms that
the he/hm ratio increases by about 25% and shows, furthermore,
sidered intervals were limited.
Finally we mention the results of two different works, which
study carbon nanotube-based nanofluid. In particular, Ding et al.
[41] studied the he/hm ratio of a MWCNT-water nanofluid at low
volume concentration (0.048%) at various values of the x/D ratio
(axial distance / tube diameter) as a function of the Reynolds
number Faulkner et al. [67] have studied a similar nanofluid,
MWCNT-waterþ NaDBS (sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate), at
different volume concentrations (1.1–4.4%), as a function of the
Reynolds number. Both studies display a high increase in he/hm
ratio in the order of 200–250%, which confirms the fact that
MWCNT-based nanofluids have interesting thermal properties
under the point of view of applications as heat exchangers, etc.
As far as turbulent flow is concerned, there are even fewer
works in the literature and we cite only the results found by Pak
and Cho [68] and by Xuan and Li [34].
In the former study, comparison of two metal oxide-based
nanofluids is made: Al2O3–water (d¼ 13 nm) and TiO2 (d¼27 nm)–
water at various volume concentrations (see Fig. 2.13(a) and (b)).
The latter study looks at water-based Cu nanofluid (do100 nm)
at different volume concentrations (Fig. 2.13(c)).
From these studies it emerges that the effect of the Reynolds
number on the increase in the Nusselt numbers ratio and as a
consequence on the increase in the convective heat transfer
coefficient is negligible.
Recent reviews on the increase in convective heat transfer
through nanofluids have been produced by Wang et al. [69] and by
Kakaç et al. [70].
In Table 2.2 it has been attempted, as far as possible, to
summarize the main experimental results obtained by the various
research groups, trying to render them homogeneous.
1192 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198
Fig. 2.13. Nue/Nu0 as a function of the Reynolds number for: (a) Al2O3–water;
(b) TiO2–water; Cu–water (c). For each of the three cases the volume concentration
of the nanoparticle has been varied.
2.2.2. Increase in heat transfer in pool boiling
The results available in the literature on heat transfer increase
in the case of boiling in stagnant liquid are very few and are
summarized in Table 2.3.
In Fig. 2.14 we report the results from a study carried out by Das
et al. [75,76], in which the heat transfer in an Al2O3–water
nanofluid boiling around small tubes has been investigated. In
the experiments different size and/or geometries of the tube have
been used, as well as several volume concentrations. The ratio
between the Nusselt numbers as a function of the Reynolds
number has been given.
The increase in the convective heat transfer coefficient (h) ratio
is always less than one. There is not a clear relationship between
the Nue/Nu0 ratio and nanoparticle size, but it emerges that, as the
ratio decreases, volume concentration increases, in clear contrast
to the observed behavior of thermal conductivity in nanofluids.
Given that after the experiments, a deposit of nanoparticles
was observed on the heated walls of the tube, it is concluded that
the low performance are to be attributed to the phenomenon of
nanoparticle clustering.
In partial compensation for this effect, it should be observed
that with increasing volume concentration the critical heat flux
(CHF) increases.
In Fig. 2.15 the results obtained by two other research groups
on a similar nanofluid, namely Al2O3–water, boiling on a flat
horizontal surface are shown. We give the he/h0 ratio as a function
of heat flow for various volume concentrations.
Bang and Chang [77] have used some parameters which are in
the same range as those used for the experiments above summar-
ized in Fig. 2.14, with similar results: the addition of nanoparticles
to the base fluid reduces the rate of heat transfer and this decrease
becomes larger and larger with the increase in nanoparticle
volume concentration.
The results reported by Wen and Ding [11], shown in Fig. 2.15
too, are against this trend. They demonstrate that the he/h0 ratio in
the case of pool boiling heightens the increase in nanoparticle
volume concentration at low levels of concentration (up to 0.32%).
This observation suggests that to have a positive increase in heat
transfer, one should use nanofluids with low particle volume
concentrations.
In Table 2.3 an attempt has been made, as far as possible, to
summarize the experimental results obtained by the principal
research groups, seeking to render them homogenous.
2.2.3. Increase in critical heat flux in pool boiling
The critical heat flux (CHF) in pool boiling is the liquid–vapor
phase transition point, with the appearance of vapor bubbles on the
heated surfaces of the device. Once the transition phase has been
passed, the heat transfer efficiency of fluid diminishes drastically.
This effect, therefore, strongly limits the heat transfer process in
industrial apparatus operating in pooling conditions, because of the
local overheating of heated parts. In practice it is convenient that
such situation occurs far from the working point typical of device
operation. Consequently, any procedure that increases CHF value is
to be desired, and nanofluids have this potential.
In Table 2.4 there is a summary of the salient results on the
increase in CHFe/CHF0 ratio obtained by the various research
groups, for various materials and various boundary conditions.
As an example, in Fig. 2.16 we give the results obtained by You
et al. [78] and Bang and Chang [77] on the increase in the CHFe/
CHF0 ratio for Al2O3–water nanofluids as a function of volume
concentration (the wide range of values should be noted: six
orders of magnitude).
The increase observed in the ratio is still more than one, but in
the case of low nanoparticle volume concentrations (range
0.0001–0.001), a notable increase can be observed, of about
200%. This, as we discussed in the previous section, is consistent
with what is found experimentally always at low volume concen-
trations for the increase of heat transfer in nanofluids.
Contrary to what has been stated about the increase in nanofluid
thermal conductivity, a decrease in degree of acidity leads to an
increase in CHF of even 350% (Milanova and Kumar [79]).
The observed increase in CHF with the use of nanofluids in
these preliminary experiments is highly important because it
 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198 1193

Table 2.3
Synthesis of experimental results on increase in heat transfer in pool boiling.

Particle Base fluid Volume fraction Particle size Enhancement Notes

type (%) (nm) ratio

Das et al. [75] Al2O3 Water (smooth cylindrical 1.00 38 0.72–0.80 Two step method reduced Nusselt number
surface) Re¼0.44–2.89
Al2O3 Water (smooth cylindrical 2.00 38 0.69–0.76
surface)
Al2O3 Water (smooth cylindrical 4.00 38 0.60–0.65
surface)
Al2O3 Water (rough cylindrical 1.00 38 0.65–0.69
surface)
Al2O3 Water (rough cylindrical 2.00 38 0.64–0.69
surface)
Al2O3 Water (rough cylindrical 4.00 38 0.57–0.60
surface)
Das et al. [76] Al2O3 Water, 4 mm tube 1.00 58.4 0.79–0.85 Two step method reduced Nusselt number
Al2O3 Water, 6.5 mm tube 1.00 58.4 0.71–0.79 Re¼0.09–2.92
Al2O3 Water, 20 mm tube 1.00 58.4 0.83–0.85
Al2O3 Water, 4 mm tube 4.00 58.4 0.46–0.55
Al2O3 Water, 6.5 mm tube 4.00 58.4 0.64–0.71
Al2O3 Water, 20 mm tube 4.00 58.4 0.64–0.70
Bang and Chang Al2O3 Water. horizontal surface 0.50 47 0.75–0.92 Two step method reduced heat transfer
[77] Al2O3 Water, horizontal surface 1.00 47 0.78–0.89 coefficient
Al2O3 Water, horizontal surface 2.00 47 0.70–0.83
Al2O3 Water, horizontal surface 4.00 47 0.68–0.83 Heat Flux¼ 50.00–505.50 (kW/m2)
Wen and Ding Al2O3 Water, horizontal surface 0.08 10–50 1.06–1.22 Two step method enhanced heat transfer
[11] Al2O3 Water, horizontal surface 0.18 10–50 1.12–1.29 coefficient
Al2O3 Water, horizontal surface 0.24 10–50 1.19–1.36
Al2O3 Water, horizontal surface 0.32 10–50 1.24–1.40 Heat flux ¼26.50–126.00 (kW/m2)

Fig. 2.14. Nue/Nu0 as a function of the Reynolds number for Al2O3–water nanofluid
for two different NPs size: 38 nm and 58 nm (closed symbols and open symbols Fig. 2.15. Pool-boiling heat transfer of Al2O3 in water from a horizontal surface.
respectively). Data from Das et al. [75] closed symbols and Das et al. [76] open Closed symbols represent data from Bang and Chang [77]; Open symbols represent
symbols. data from Wen and Ding [11].

provides an instrument for increasing the safety margins of
industrial apparatus which operates with heat exchanges in pool
boiling conditions.
In Table 2.4 it has been attempted, as far as possible, to
summarize in a homogenous fashion the experimental obtained
by the principal research groups.
2.2.4. Optical properties of nanoparticles for direct absorption solar
thermal energy
In this paragraph, we present a very recent state of the research
on the optical properties of nanofluids.
In fact, it is well known that the addition of small quantities of
nanoparticles in a base fluid (water or other solvent) drastically
changes its optical properties. Besides the obvious consequence
regarding the overall optical properties, which results to be the
weighted sum of both NPs and base-fluid ones, the possibility to
change material, size, shape and volume fraction of NPs allows to
engineering the nanofluids and their properties, such as absorp-
tion/scattering and spectral selectively, in order to make them
suitable for different applications.
In the frame of research activity about thermal properties of
nanofluids as discussed in the previous sections, several groups
have recently started to investigate the optical properties of
nanofluids in order to exploit the possibility to use them for direct
energy absorption in solar thermal collectors. The idea is to
efficiently absorb solar radiation and to convert it in heat in the
working nanofluids, minimizing the heat loss in the plant (Taylor
et al. [82]).
In particular both theoretical and experimental results of optical
absorption have been reported in the Vis–NI spectral region, namely
300 nm up to 2 μm, for several kinds of nanoparticles and base
1194 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198

Table 2.4
Summary of experimental results of the increase in critical heat flux in pool boiling.

Particle Base fluid Volume fraction (%) Particle size (nm) Enhancement Notes
type ratio

You et al. [78] Al2O3 Water (horizontal surface) 0.00–0.13 – 1.24–3.11 Two step method
Vassallo et al. [80] SiO2 Water (NiCr horizontal tube) 0.50 15 1.60 Two step method
SiO2 Water (NiCr horizontal tube) 0.50 50 3.00
SiO2 Water (NiCr horizontal tube) 0.50 3000 1.50
Bang and Chang [77] Al2O3 Water horizontal surface 0.50–4.00 47 1.32–1.52 Two step method
Al2O3 Water vertical tube 0.50–4.00 47 1.13
Milanova and Kumar [79] SiO2 Water (NiCr horizontal tube pH ¼ 10.2) 0.5 10 4.52 Two step method
SiO2 Water (NiCr horizontal tube pH ¼ 9.2) 0.5 20 2.39 Ion effect
SiO2 Water (NiCr horizontal tube pH ¼ 10) 0.5 10 3.16 pH effect
SiO2 Water (NiCr horizontal tube pH ¼ 10) 0.5 20 2.30
Liu and Qui [81] CuO Water (saturate-jet on horizontal surface.) 0.02–0.32 50 1.17–1.25 Two step method
CuO Water (subcooled-jet on horizontal 0.02–0.32 60.4 1.16–1.25
surface)

optical absorption experiments on ZnO, Fe2O3 and CeO2 nanopar-

Fig. 2.16. CHFe/CHF0 as a function of volume concentration for Al2O3–water, boiling
on a flat horizontal surface.
fluid. Also the volume fractions of the nanoparticles dispersed in the
base fluid is a very important parameter. In Table 2.5 we summarize
the main results.
In more details, depending on the volume fraction, particle size
and materials of nanoparticles (whether metallic, metal oxide,
carbon nanotube or other) the research groups have found that the
extinction coefficient of the nanofluids can be dominated almost
entirely by absorption (mainly by nanoparticles) or by single/
multiple scattering. Anyway discrepancies between experimental
results and model are present in many works due to several
factors: (i) the complex refractive index for materials is often know
in a limited spectral range. In some cases it is considered even
constant over the whole spectral range of interest; (ii) aggregation
of NPs strongly affects the scattered component of the light in the
extinction coefficient; (iii) Plasmon resonances in nanofluid with
metallic nanoparticles play an important role which has been only
very recently included in the analysis of experimental results.
Finally, a new frontier in high temperature heat transfer fluids
is represented by gas-based metal–oxide nanofluids, that are a
mixture of air (or other gasses such as Nitrogen, Helium, Argon,
etc.) and metal–oxide nanoparticles. Several studies [83–86]
showed that solid–gas suspension can be successfully used
coupled with transparent receivers in solar power plants because
the concentrated solar radiation directly heats nanoparticles, thus
increasing the heat transfer solid–gas surface of 4 to 6 order of
magnitude, with respect to traditional receivers, depending on
nanoparticles diameter. In order to assess the possibility to use a
gas-based nanofluid with metal–oxide nanoparticles, as reported
by de Risi et al. [87], Cretì et al. [88] have recently performed
ticles as a function of operation temperature in the range
25–500 1C. In other words, the aim of the investigation has been
to study how the optical properties of such nanoparticles are
modified at high temperature and in particular whether the
absorption coefficient changes significantly in that temperature
range in such a way to make these nanofluids not suitable for
operation at very high temperature. The study showed that optical
properties of such nanoparticles are not modified at high tem-
perature and in particular the absorption coefficient doesn’t
change significantly in that temperature range. This result makes
metal–oxide nanoparticles suitable for operations at very high
temperature, thus encouraging the use of gas-based nanofluids as
heat transfer fluid in concentrated solar power plants.
Other studies have been carried out about the absorption
capabilities of nanofluids for solar applications, with encouraging
results [89–96].
Concerning plasmon resonances, Xuan et al. [97] and Jeon et al.
[98] have investigated the effect of Local Surface Plasmon Reso-
nances (LSPR) in Ag, TiO2, TiO2/Ag and Au bases plasmonic
nanofluids respectively (see Table 2.5 for details).
3. Conclusions
In this paper the scientific literature about the different phenom-
ena of heat transfer in nanofluids has been analized, with a particular
attention to the parameters that influence the thermal performance
of this particular kind of heat transfer fluid. In particular conduction,
convection and radiation have been considered.
For thermal conductivity the following parameters have been
analyzed: nanoparticle volume concentration; nanoparticle mate-
rial; nanoparticle size; nanoparticle shape; basefluid; tempera-
ture; additives; acidity. Generally the conclusions of the papers in
literature are not always in agreement, but some conclusions are
in common:
 Nanofluid thermal conductivity increases linearly with nano-
particle volume concentration. In some cases the increase was
non-linear.
 Metallic nanoparticle have better conductive performance than
metal–oxides.
 Notwithstanding the fact that the results are not conclusive, in
the literature, the general trend is that increase in nanofluid
thermal conductivity is larger with a decrease in
nanoparticle size.
 Cylindrical nanoparticles perform better than spherical ones.
 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198 1195

Table 2.5
Summary of experimental results of optical properties of nanoparticles.

Particle type Particle size (nm) Base fluid Volume Theoretical models Comparison with
fraction (%) experiment. Main results

Taylor Graphite Al, Cu, Au, Ag – Water, VP-1 0.00001–0.5 Lambert–Beer law Good agreement for
et al. Graphite
[82] Nominal:20–40 Water, VP-1 0.00001–0.5 Mie Scattering Some discrepancies for
Measured: 50–120 Maxwell–Garnett for metal NPs due to:
complex dielectric plasmon resonance and
constant. NPs agglomeration
Saidur Al, spherical shape 1–20 nm Water 0.1–8.0 Lambert–Beer law; No experimental results
et al. Strong absorption at
[89] 300 nm
Rayleigh scattering; Best volume fraction
value: 1%
Otanicar None – Water – Transmittance Correction due to multi
et al. Ethylene glycol reflection (3 slabs
[90] systems); Water is the
best absorber (13%)
Propylene glycol (Fresnell relations) VP-1 is the weakest
Therminol VP-1 absorber (2%)
Kullar Al 100 nm Water 0.01 and 0.1 Lambert–Beer law Optical efficiency as a
et al. Ethylene glycol function of the receiver
[85] Propylene glycol Rayleigh scattering radius are studied and
Therminol VP-1 the results for the four
nanofluids are very
similar
Zhu et al. ZnO, 10 Water 0.02 Lambert–Beer law Dispersant reduces the
[91] transmittance ( o5%)
AlN 40 Dispersants: 0.02, 00.06, ZnO, Semitransparent
AlN in 300–1400 nm
ZrC, 40 E80, Arabic 0.1 Mie scattering Black in 1400–
2400 nm
TiN 29 Gum 0.02 ZrC, Absorb most of
0.02 TiN solar radiation
Weighted solar
absorbance:
AlN: 45%–ZnO: 31%–ZrC:
87%–TiN: 99%
Mercatelli Single Wall Carbon Different shape Waterþ sodium n-dodecyl Several First experimental
et al. Nano Horns (SWCNH) sulfate as dispersant concentration measurement of
[86] (g/l) extinction and
absorption coefficient for
SWCNH
At three wavelength
(632.8, 751, and 833 nm)
Mercatelli SWCNH Cone shaped Water 0.005–0.06 Lambert–Beer law Temperature of the
et al. stable suspension: 120 1C
[92] (water)–150 1C (glycol)
Sani et al. 2–5 nm  30–50 nm Glycol Rayleigh scattering Very low scattering
[93] component (5%).
Absorption effect is
strongly prevailing
Hordy MWCNT 30 nm  4 μm Water 0–53 mg/L Lambert–Beer law Long-term, room
et al. temperature stability (up
[96] to 8 months) has been
demonstrated for the
glycol-based nanofluids
Propylene glycol No agglomeration after
heating to 85 and 170 1C
for the aqueous and
glycol based nanofluids,
respectively
Propylene glycol High optical absorption
Therminol VP-1 in solar spectrum range
Xuang TiO2, R1/R2¼ 20/30 nm Water 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 Mie scattering; Optical absorption of
et al. TiO2/Ag plasmonic
[97] nanofluid is remarkably
enhanced
Ag TiO2/Ag core/shell R1/R2¼ 25/30 nm Localized surface plasmon The temperature of TiO2/
resonance (LSPR) Ag plasmonic nanofluid
is much higher than that
of TiO2
Under the same incident
light intensity
Jeon et al. Au Three different shape: Cetyltrimethylammonium Blended Lambert–Beer law Experimental
[98] Diameter: 15–17 nm bromide (CTAB) Nanofluid observation of LSPR
Length: 26–72 nm Deionized water.
1196 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198

Table 2.5 (continued )

Particle type Particle size (nm) Base fluid Volume Theoretical models Comparison with
fraction (%) experiment. Main results

Spectral tunability of Au
based nanofluid in the
visible and near-infrared
spectral region
Yousefia Al2O3 15 Waterþ Triton X 100 0.2–0.4 None Increase in efficiency of
et al. (0.021%) solar collector (28.3%)
[94]
Gan et al. Al, 80 nm Ethanol 0.1 Lambert–Beer law Al-based nanofluid has
[83] the lowest transmission
(2% over most of the
spectrum)
CNPs, 6 nm MWCNTs has a lower
transmission in the UV,
but an higher
transmission in the vis
SWCNTs 1–2 nm  5–30 μm Rayleigh scattering MWCNTS-based NF
MWCNTs 20 nm  1–5 μm result to be more
effective in the radiation
absorption
Han et al. Carbon Black (N115) 50–500 nm Water Up to 7.5% None High absorption in the
[84] 200–2500 nm spectrum
Cretì et al. ZnO 10 None. – None Experimental optical
[88] absorption up to 550 1C
Fe2O3 4 The NPs have been deposited Optical properties of
on sapphire substrate such nanoparticles are
not modified at high
temperature, even after
many heating/cooling
cycles
CeO2 3 Absorption coefficient
doesn’t change
significantly in this
temperature range
Wei et al. Simulated NPs 1.5 Simulated weakly absorber 0.005–0.74 1—Indipendent scattering approximation
[95] 15 fluid:
Metallic-like: n¼ 50 n ¼1.3 þ10  8i 2—Effective field approximation: multiple scattering
(1.5 þ 5i) 150 3—Quasi-crystalline approx.: multiple and dependent
scattering (QCA)
4—Federov and Viskanta’s model based on Mie theory
(FV)
5—Yin and Pilon’s model with far-field and near field
approx.
6—Modified QCA with FV Model
The six models are compared. The modified QCA model
better reproduce the experimental results, even though
some discrepancies are observed duo to agglomeration
of NPs

 The increase in thermal conductivity is lower whether base
fluid thermal conductivity increases.
 Thermal conductivity enhancement for nanofluids is generally
temperature independent.
 Clustering has an important role in influencing thermal
conductivity.
 The use of additives and surfactants modifies nanofluid pH
value and thus there are discrepancies in the thermal con-
ductivity data reported in literature.
The studies present in the literature about convective coeffi-
cient of nanofluids are relatively few and results are mixed. Even
in the cases where experimental conditions are similar, some
groups report the ratio between the convective heat transfer
coefficient (h) he/hm as a function of the Reynolds number, others
report the Nusselt number ratio Nue/Num as a function of the
Reynolds number or of the Peclet number. Generally increase in
convective coefficient is higher than the increase observed for
thermal conductivity.
Finally, during the last few years the efforts of several research
groups have been focused on the studies about the use of
nanofluids and plasmonic nanofluids for the direct optical absorp-
tion of solar energy in thermal collectors.
The conclusion of this work is that the research in this field is
relatively young to be conclusive.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the SOLAR project (DM19447),
funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR).
References
[1] Choi SUS. Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles. ASME
Fluids Eng Div 1995;231:99–105.
[2] Saidur R, Leong KY, Mohammad HA. A review on applications and challenges
of nanofluids. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2011;15(3):1646–68.
[3] Huminic G, Huminic A. Application of nanofluids in heat exchangers: a review.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2012;16(8):5625–38.
[4] Paul G, Chopkar M, Manna I, Das PK. Techniques for measuring the thermal
conductivity of nanofluids: a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2010;14(7):1913–24.
 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198
[5] Sarkar J. A critical review on convective heat transfer correlations of nano-
fluids. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2011;15(6):3271–7.
[6] Masuda H, Ebata A, Teramae K, Hishinuma N. Alteration of thermal conduc-
tivity and viscosity of liquid by dispersing ultrafine particles (dispersion of
c-Al2O3, SiO2, and TiO2 ultra-fine particles). Netsu Bussei 1993;4(4):227–33.
[7] Lee S, Choi SUS, Li S, Eastman JA. Measuring thermal conductivity of fluids
containing oxide nanoparticles. J Heat Transfer 1999;121:280–9.
[8] Wang X, Xu X, Choi SUS. Thermal conductivity of nanoparticle–fluid mixture.
J Thermophys Heat Transfer 1999;13(4):474–80.
[9] Xie H, Wang J, Xi T, Liu Y, Ai F, Wu Q. Thermal conductivity enhancement of
suspensions containing nanosized alumina particles. J Appl Phys 2002;91
(7):4568–72.
[10] Das SK, Putra N, Thiesen P, Roetzel W. Temperature dependence of thermal
conductivity enhancement for nanofluids. ASME J Heat Transfer 2003;125
(4):567–74.
[11] Wen D, Ding Y. Experimental investigation into the pool bolining heat transfer
of aqueous based γ-allumina nanofluids. J Nanopart Res 2005;7:265–74.
[12] Li CH, Peterson GP. Experimental investigation of temperature and volume
fraction variations on the effective thermal conductivity of nanoparticle
suspensions (nanofluids). J Appl Phys 2006;99(8):1–8.
[13] Barbes V, Paramo R, Blanco E, Pastoriza-Gallego MJ, Pineiro MM, Legido JL,
Casanova C. Thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity measurements of
Al2O3 nanofluids. J Therm Anal Calorim 2013;111:1615–25.
[14] Lee D, Kim JW, Kim BG. A new parameter to control heat transport in
nanofluids: surface charge state of the particle in suspension. J Phys Chem B
2006;110(9):4323–8.
[15] Hwang Y, Park HS, Lee JK, Jung WH. Thermal conductivity and lubrification
characteristics of nanofluids. Curr Appl Phys 2006(6S1):e67–71.
[16] Khedkar RS, Sonawane SS, Wasewar KL. Influence of CuO nanoparticles in
enhancing the thermal conductivity of water and monoethylene glycol based
nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2012;39:665–9.
[17] Murshed SMS, Leong KC, Yang C. Enhanced thermal conductivity of TiO2-water
based nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci 2005;44(4):367–73.
[18] Palabiyik I, Musina Z, Witharana S, Ding Y. Dispersion stability and thermal
conductivity of propylene glycol-based nanofluids. J Nanopart Res
2011;13:5049–55.
[19] Kole M, Dey TK. Effect of prolonged ultrasonication on the thermal conduc-
tivity of ZnO–ethylene glycol nanofluids. Thermochim Acta 2012;535:58–65.
[20] Ismaya MJL, Doroodchib E, Moghtaderia B. Effects of colloidal properties on
sensible heat transfer in water-based titania nanofluids. Chem Eng Res Des
2013;91:426–36.
[21] Xie H, Wang J, Xi T, Liu Y. Thermal conductivity of suspensions containing
nanosized SiC particles. Int J Thermophys 2002;23(2):571–80.
[22] Eastman JA, Choi SUS, Li S, Yu W, Thompson LJ. Anomalously increased
effective thermal conductivities of ethylene glycol-based nanofluids contain-
ing copper nanoparticles. Appl Phys Lett 2001;78(6):718–20.
[23] Hong TK, Yang HS, Choi CJ. Study of the enhanced thermal conductivity of Fe
nanofluids. J Appl Phys 2005;97:064311.
[24] Baheta AT, Woldeyohannes AD. Effetct of particle size on effective thermal
conductivity of nanofluids. Asian J Sci Res 2013;6(2):339–45.
[25] Beck MP, Yuan Y, Warrier P, Teja AS. The effect of particle size on the thermal
conductivity of alumina nanofluids. J Nanopart Res 2009;11(5):1129–36.
[26] Mintsa HA, Roy G, Nguyen CT, Doucet D. New temperature dependent thermal
conductivity data for water-based nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci 2009;48(2):363–71.
[27] Nisha MR, Philip J. Dependence of particle size on the effective thermal
diffusivity and conductivity of nanofluids: role of base fluid properties. Heat
Mass Transfer 2012;48:1783–90.
[28] Chopkar M, Das PK, Manna I. Synthesis and characterization of nanofluid for
advanced heat transfer applications. Scr Mater 2006;55(6):549–52.
[29] Chopkar M, Sudarshan S, Das PK, Manna I. Effect of particle size on thermal
conductivity of nanofluid. Metall Mater Trans A 2008;39(7):1535–42.
[30] Colangelo G, Favale E, de Risi A, Laforgia D. Results of experimental investiga-
tions on the heat conductivity of nanofluids based on diathermic oil for high
temperature applications. Appl Energy 2012;97:828–33.
[31] Feng Y, Yu B, Xu P, Zou M. The effective thermalconductivity of nanofluids
based on the nanolayer and theaggregation of nanoparticles. J Phys D: Appl
Phys 2007;40(10):3164–71.
[32] Timofeeva EV, Routbort JL, Singh D. Particle shape effects on thermophysical
properties of alumina nanofluids. J Appl Phys 2009;106(1):014304.
[33] Maxwell JC. A treatise on electricity and magnetism. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1873.
[34] Xuan Y, Li Q, Hu W. Aggregation structure and thermal conductivity of
nanofluids. AIChE J 2003;49(4):1038–43.
[35] Lee D. Thermophysical properties of interfacial layer in nanofluids. Langmuir
2007;23(11):6011–8.
[36] Xie H, Wang J, Xi T, Liu Y, Ai F. Dependence of the thermal conductivity of
nanoparticle–fluid mixture on the base fluid. J Mater Sci Lett 2002;21
(19):1469–71.
[37] Li CH, Williams W, Buongiorno J, Hu LW, Peterson GP. Transient and steady-
state experimental comparison study of effective thermal conductivity of
Al2O3/water nanofluids. J Heat Transfer 2008;130(4):042407.
[38] Yiamsawasda T, Dalkilicb AS, Wongwises S. Measurement of the thermal con-
ductivity of titania and alumina nanofluids. Thermochim Acta 2012;545:48–56.
[39] Turgut A, Tavman I, Chirtoc M, Schuchmann HP, Sauter C, Tavman S. Thermal
conductivity and viscosity measurements of water-based TiO2 nanofluids. Int J
Thermophys 2009;30:1213–26.
1197
[40] Xiang-Qi Wang, Mujumdar Arun S. Heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids:
a review. Int J Therm Sci 2007;46(1):1–19.
[41] Ding Y, Alias H, Wen D, Williams RA. Heat transfer of aqueous suspensions of
carbon nanotubes (CNT nanofluids). Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2006;49(1–2):240–50.
[42] Zhang X, Gu H, Fujii M. Effective thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity
of nanofluids containing spherical and cylindrical nanoparticles. J Appl Phys
2006;100(4):1–5.
[43] Zhang X, Gu H, Fujii M. Experimental study on the effective thermal
conductivity and thermal diffusivity of nanofluids. Int J Thermophys
2006;27(2):569–80.
[44] Roy G, Nguyen CT, Doucet D, Suiro S, Mare´ T. Temperature dependent thermal
conductivity of alumina based nanofluids. In: Davis GV, Leonardi E, editors.
Proceedings of 13th international heat transfer conference, Begell House Inc,
Redding, CT; 2006.
[45] Murshed SMS, Leong KC, Yang C. Investigations of thermal conductivity and
viscosity of nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci 2008;47(5):560–8.
[46] Palabiyik I, Musina Z, Witharana S, Ding Y. Dispersion stability and thermal
conductivity of propylene glycol-based nanofluids. J Nanopart Res
2011;13:5049–55.
[47] Hong KS, Hong T-K, Yang H-S. Thermal conductivity of Fe nanofluids depend-
ing on the cluster size of nanoparticles. Appl Phys Lett 2006;88(3):1–3.
[48] Assael MJ, Metaxa IN, Arvanitidis J, Christofilos D, Lioutas C. Thermal
conductivity enhancement in aqueous suspensions of carbon multi-walled
and double-walled nanotubes in the presence of two different dispersants. Int
J Thermophys 2005;26(3):647–64.
[49] LotfizadehDehkordi B, Kazi SN, Hamdi M, Ghadimi A, Sadeghinezhad E,
Metselaar HSC. Investigation of viscosity and thermal conductivity of alumina
nanofluids with addition of SDBS. Heat Mass Transfer 2013;49(8):1109–15.
[50] Wang X, Zhu D. Investigation of pH and SDBS on enhancement of thermal
conductivity in nanofluids. Chem Phys Lett 2009;470(1–3):107–11.
[51] Murshed SMS, Leong KC, Yang C. Characterization of electrokinetic properties
of nanofluids. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2008;8(11):5966–71.
[52] Ismaya MJL, Doroodchib E, Moghtaderia B. Effects of colloidal properties on
sensible heat transfer in water-based titania nanofluids. Chem Eng Res Des
2013;9(1):426–36.
[53] Chon CH, Kihm KD, Lee SP, Choi SUS. Empirical correlation finding the role of
temperature and particle size for nanofluid (Al2O3) thermal conductivity
enhancement. Appl Phys Lett 2005;87(15):3107.
[54] Liu MS, Lin MCC, Huang IT, Wang CC. Enhancement of thermal conductivity
with CuO for nanofluids. Chem Eng Technol 2006;29(1):72–7.
[55] Choi SUS, Zhang ZG, Yu W, Lockwood FE, Grulke EA. Anomalous thermal
conductivity enhancement in nanotube suspensions. Appl Phys Lett
2001;79:2252.
[56] Marquis FDS, Chibante LPF. Improving the heat transfer of nanofluids and
nanolubricants with carbon nanotubes. JOM 2005;57(12):32–43.
[57] Yang Y, Grulke EA, Zhang ZG, Wu G. Thermal and rheological properties of
carbon nanotube-in-oil dispersions. J Appl Phys 2006;99(11):114307 (114307).
[58] Liu MS, Lin MCC, Huang IT, Wang CC. Enhancement of thermal conductivity
with carbon nanotube for nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer
2005;32(9):1202–10.
[59] Colangelo G, Favale E, de Risi A, Laforgia D. A new solution for reduced
sedimentation flat panel solar thermal collector using nanofluids. Appl Energy
2013;111:80–93.
[60] Wen D, Ding Y. Experimental investigation into convective heat transfer of
nanofluids at the entrance region under laminar flow conditions. Int J Heat
Mass Transfer 2004;47(24):5181–8.
[61] Heris SZ, Etemad G, Esfahany MN. Experimental investigation of oxide
nanofluids laminar flow convection heat transfer. Int Commun Heat Mass
Transfer 2006;33:529–35.
[62] Xuan Y, Li Q. Investigation convective heat transfer and flow features of
nanofluids. J Heat Transfer 2002;125:151–5.
[63] Yang Y, Zhang ZG, Grulke EA, Anderson WB, Wu G. Heat transfer properties of
nanoparticle-in-fluid dispersions (nanofluids) in laminar flow. Int J Heat Mass
Transfer 2005;48:1107–16.
[64] Ma HB, Wilson C, Borgmeyer B, Park K, Yu Q. Effect of nanofluid on the heat
transport capability in an oscillatory heat pipe. Appl Phys Lett 2006;88:143116.
[65] Chen H, Yang W, He Y, Ding Y, Zhang L, Tan C, Lapkin AA, Bavykin DV. Heat
trasnfer behaviour of aqueous suspensions of titanate nanofluids. Powder
Technol 2008;183:63–72.
[66] Kulkarni DP, Namburu PK, Ed Bargar H, Das DK. Convective heat transfer and
fluid dynamic characteristics of SiO2 ethylene glycol/water nanofluid. Heat
Transfer Eng 2008;29(12):1027–35.
[67] Faulkner D.J., Rector D.R., Davidson J., Shekarriz R., Enhanced heat transfer
trough the use of nanofluids in forced convenction. In: The proceeding of
IMECE 2004. Anaheim, CA, USA, November 13–19; 2004.
[68] Pak BC, Cho YI. Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed fluids with
submicron metallic oxide particles. Exp Heat Transfer 1998;11:151–70.
[69] Wang Xiang-Qi, Mujumdar AS. Heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids: a
review. Int J Therm Sci 2007;46:1–19.
[70] Kakaç S, Pramuanjaroenkij A. Review of convective heat transfer enhancement
with nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2009;52:3187–96.
[71] Putra N, Roetzel W, Das SK. Natural convection of nano-fluids. Heat Mass
Transfer 2003;39(8–9):775–84.
[72] Wen D, Ding Y. Formulation of nanofluids for natural convective heat transfer
applications. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2005;26:855–64.
1198 M. Lomascolo et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43 (2015) 1182–1198
[73] Wen D, Ding Y. Natural convective heat transfer of suspensions of titanium
dioxide nanoparticles (Nanofluids). IEEE Trans Nanotechnol 2006;5:220–7.
[74] Williams W, Buongiorno J, Hu L-W. Experimental investigation of turbulent
convective heat transfer and pressure loss of alumina/water and zirconia/
water nanoparticle colloids (nanofluids) in horizontal tubes. ASME J Heat
Transfer 2008;130:1–6.
[75] Das SK, Putra N, Roetzel W. Pool boiling characteristics of nano-fluids. Int J
Heat Mass Transfer 2003;46:851–62.
[76] Das SK, Putra N, Roetzel W. Pool boiling of nano-fluids on horizontal narrow
tubes. Int J Multiphase Flow 2003;29:1237–47.
[77] Bang JC, Chang SH. Boiling heat transfer performance and phenomena of
Al2O3–water nanofluids from a plain surface in a pool. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
2005;48:2407–19.
[78] You SM, Kim JH, Kim KH. Effect of nanoparticles on critical heat flux of water
in pool boiling heat transfer. Appl Phys Lett 2003;83:3374–6.
[79] Milanova D, Kumar R. Role of ions in pool boiling heat transfer of pure and
silica nanofluids. Appl Phys Lett 2005;87:233107.
[80] Vassallo P, Kumar R, D’Amico S. Pool boiling heat transfer experiments in
silica–water nano-fluids. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2004;47(2):407–11.
[81] Liu ZH, Qui YH. Boiling heat transfer characteristic of nanofluids jet impinge-
ment on a plate surface. Heat Mass Transfer 2007;43:699–706.
[82] Taylor RA, Phelan PE, Otanicar TP, Adrian R, Prasher R. Nanofluid optical
property characterization: towards efficient direct absorption solar collectors.
Nanoscale Res Lett 2011;6:225.
[83] Gan Y, Qiao L. Optical properties and radiation-enhanced evaporation of
nanofluid fuels containing carbon-based nanostructures. Energy Fuels
2012;26:4224–30.
[84] Han D, Meng Z, Wu D, Zhang C, Zhu H. Thermal properties of carbon black
aqueous nanofluids for solar absorption. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011;6:457.
[85] Khullar V, Tyagi H. Enhancing, optical efficiency of a linear parabolic solar
collector through nanofluids. AIP Conf Proc 2011;1391:353.
[86] Mercatelli L, Sani E, Fontani D, Zaccanti G, Martelli F, Di Ninni P. Scattering and
absorption properties of carbon nanohorn-based nanofluids for solar energy
applications. J Eur Opt Soc—Rapid Publ 2011;6:11025.
[87] de Risi A, Milanese M, Laforgia D. Modelling and optimization of transparent
parabolic trough collector based on gas-phase nanofluids. Renewable Energy
2013;58:134–9.
[88] Cretì A, Epifani M, Taurino A, Catalano M, Casino F, Lomascolo M, Milanese M,
de Risi A. Optical absorption measurements at high temperature (500 1C) of
oxide nanoparticles for application as gas-based nanofluid in solar thermal
collector systems. Adv Mater Res 2013;773:80–6.
[89] Saidur R, Meng TC, Said Z, Hasanuzzaman M, Kamyar A. Evaluation of the
effect of nanofluid-based absorbers on direct solar collector. Int J Heat Mass
Transfer 2012;55:5899–907.
[90] Otanicar PT, Phelan PE, Golden JS. Optical properties of liquids for direct
absorption solar thermal energy systems. Sol Energy 2009;83:969.
[91] Zhu Q, Cui Y, Mu L, Tang L. Characterization of thermal radiative properties of
nanofluids for selective absorption of solar radiation. Int J Thermophys 2012.
[92] Mercatelli L, Sani E, Zaccanti G, Martelli F, Di Ninni P, Barison S, Pagura C,
Agresti F, Jafrancesco D. Absorption and scattering properties of carbon
nanohorn-based nanofluids for direct sunlight absorbers. Nanoscale Res Lett
2011;6:282.
[93] Sani E, Mercatelli L, Barison S, Pagura C, Agresti F, Colla L, Sansoni P. Potential
of carbon nanohorn-based suspensions for solar thermal collectors. Sol Energy
Mater Sol Cells 2011;95:2994–3000.
[94] Yousefia T, Veysia F, Shojaeizadeha E, Zinadini S. An experimental investiga-
tion on the effect of Al2O3–H2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar
collectors. Renewable Energy 2012;39:293–8.
[95] Wei W, Fedorov AG, Luo Z, Ni M. Radiative properties of dense nanofluids.
Appl Opt 2012;51:6159.
[96] Hordy N, Rabilloud D, Meunier JL, Coulombe S. High temperature and long-
term stability of carbon nanotube nanofluids for direct absorption solar
thermal collectors,. Sol Energy 2014;105:82–90.
[97] Xuan Y, Duanb H, Lib Q. Enhancement of solar energy absorption using a
plasmonic nanofluid based on TiO2/Ag composite nanoparticles. RSC Adv
2014;4:16206.
[98] Jeon J, Park S, Lee BJ. Optical property of blended plasmonic nanofluid based
on gold nanorods. Opt Express 2014;22:A1101.