Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

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

Characterization and performance investigation of metallic oxides based

nanofluids in compound parabolic concentrating solar collector
Muhammad Faizan Zafar a, Muzaffar Ali a, b, Javed Akhter a, c, *, Muhammad Kaleem a,
Nadeem Ahmed Sheikh d
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Taxila, 47050, Pakistan
b
Department of Energy Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Taxila, 47050, Pakistan
c
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Taxila, 47050, Pakistan
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, International Islamic University Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Solar energy is the primary renewable and globally freely available resource of clean energy. Various types of
Nanofluids solar collectors are used to extract thermal energy for low to medium temperature applications. Water and
Ethylene glycol Ethylene Glycol, generally used as heat transfer fluids in such collectors, have low thermal conductivity which
Stability analysis
negatively impacts their performance. In this study, synthesis, stability analysis, characterization and thermal
Thermophysical properties
Compound parabolic concentrating collector
performance of metallic oxides-based nanofluids in a low concentration compound parabolic concentrating
Thermal efficiency (CPC) solar collector is presented. Nanofluids with three volumetric concentrations (0.025, 0.05, 0.075 %) of
MgO and Al2O3 nanoparticles are synthesized using water and Ethylene Glycol as base fluids. Two-step method is
used to prepare colloidal suspensions with the help of magnetic stirring, shear homogenization, and ultra­
sonication process. For stability analysis, zeta potential measurements are carried out at 25 ◦ C and 65 ◦ C. Al2O3/
EG and MgO/EG have shown zeta potential of − 33.45 mV and +32 mV respectively at 25 ◦ C. Maximum thermal
conductivity enhancement of 33.80 % is noted for Al2O3/H2O while dynamic viscosity enhancement of 11.83 %
is recorded for MgO/EG nanofluids with 0.075 %. volumetric concentration. Thermal performance of a sta­
tionary CPC collector is also evaluated using prepared nanofluids at flow rates of 0.02 kg/s and 0.015 kg/s. The
experimental results show that a maximum temperature difference of 8.93 ◦ C is achieved using Al2O3/H2O
nanofluid with a volumetric concentration of 0.075 % at a flow rate of 0.015 kg/s. Maximum thermal efficiency
enhancement of 25.03 % and 24.02 % is recorded for MgO/EG nanofluid with 0.075 % volumetric concentration
at flowrate of 0.02 kg/s and 0.015 kg/s, respectively.

Introduction
Global energy consumption is rapidly increasing due to fast growth
in population and economic development. Fast decaying conventional
energy sources and climatic change has developed alarming situation for
survival of mankind in future [1]. In recent studies it is established that
the non-conventional and renewable energy sources have great potential
to combat these issues. Solar energy is an eco-friendly and globally
freely available resource of clean energy that can play vital role in the
socio-economic development of any society [2,3]. Pakistan and its
neighboring countries have great potential for solar energy with an
average direct normal irradiance (DNI) of 5.5 kWh/m2/day and almost
300 sunshine days throughout the year [4]. In its southern and western
region, the DNI is about 6–6.5 kWh/m2/day with more than 8 sunshine
hours daily [5]. This huge potential, if properly exploited by using
suitable technologies, can significantly contribute to reduce the pre­
vailing large gap in demand and supply of energy as well as meet the
future energy requirements of the country.
Over the time, different types of solar collectors have been developed
to capture and convert solar energy into other useful forms [6]. Flat
plate and evacuated tube collectors are the most matured and widely
used solar thermal systems for low-temperature applications such as
domestic hot water and space heating while concentrating collectors are
considered more suitable for medium to high-temperature applications
such as combined heat and power generation [7]. Among the conven­
tional concentrating collectors, parabolic troughs are the proven
industrial-scale heat generation systems [8]. However, small industries

* Corresponding author at: Department of Mechatronics Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Taxila, 47050, Pakistan.
E-mail address: javed.akhter@uettaxila.edu.pk (J. Akhter).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102786
Received 21 January 2022; Received in revised form 30 August 2022; Accepted 16 September 2022
Available online 6 October 2022
2213-1388/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.F. Zafar et al.
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
A Area [m2]
Al2O3 Aluminum Oxide
CNTs Carbon Nanotubes
CPC Compound Parabolic Concentrator
CuO Cupric Oxide
DNI Direct Normal Irradiance
EG Ethylene Glycol
Fe2O3 Ferric Oxide
MgO Magnesium Oxide
MWCNTs Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes
PTC Parabolic Trough Collector
PVP Polyvinyl pyrrolidone
SDBS Sodium Dodecyl Benzene Sulphonate
SFT Single Flow-through tube
Ti Titanium
ZnO Zinc Oxide
T Temperature [oC]
Ge Total effective solar irradiance on collector’s aperture
[Wm− 2]
are reluctant to use these collectors due to their large installations, high
cost (especially land cost) and complex tracking mechanisms. Alterna­
tively, the compound parabolic concentrating (CPC) collectors have
emerged as the most appropriate alternative solar systems for medium-
temperature applications to achieve the required performance in a cost-
effective manner [9]. CPC collectors can provide low to medium quality
heat by using much lesser space and without the requirement of complex
tracking mechanisms resulting in a great reduction in the capital and
operating cost.
In solar thermal collectors, heat transfer between the absorber tube
and working fluid can be increased by using different thermal
enhancement methods such as geometric modifications in the receiver
tubes and optical concentrators. Recently, use of nanofluids instead of
conventional heat transfer fluids have demonstrated encouraging results
in various thermal systems [10]. The application of nanofluids in ther­
mal systems is rapidly increasing on the pretext of their superior thermal
conductivity. However, the addition of nanoparticles in base fluids also
results in higher viscosity of the colloidal suspensions which is a major
limitation of these fluids in commercial applications [11]. Stability of
nanofluids is another big challenge hindering their adoption at indus­
trial scale. Meanwhile, an increasing trend of research activities for the
application of nanofluids in solar thermal systems has been observed in
the past few decades. Lu et al. tested CuO/Water nanofluids in a heat
pipe evacuated tube collector and the results demonstrated about 30 %
increase in thermal conductivity with 1.2 % concentration of nano­
particles [12]. Liu et al., [13] achieved 12.7 % enhancement in thermal
conductivity by using CuO/Water nanofluids. In another study [14],
Carbon Nano Tubes (CNT) dispersed in water without surfactant was
investigated and the results were found comparable to CuO/water
nanofluids. In a similar study [15], CNTs with surfactant were used to
investigate their effect on thermal performance of a heat pipe collector.
The nanofluid filled heat pipes exhibited higher wall temperature in
evaporation section as compared to water filled heat pipes. In another
investigation [16], the effect of Al2O3 nanoparticles suspensions (1–3
vol%) in a two-phase closed thermosyphon was analyzed and encour­
aging results were achieved. The past research investigations show that
the performance of solar collectors can be improved by using nanofluids
as heat transfer mediums. However, there are still many challenges in
the commercial use of these innovative fluids especially in concentrating
solar collectors.
2
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786
Qu Useful Solar Heat Gain [W]
Qs Solar power entering into collector’s aperture [W]
ṁ Mass Flowrate [kg s− 1]
ΔT Temperature difference [oC]
Cp Specific Heat Capacity [J kg− 1 ◦ C− 1]
Greek Symbols
ρ Density [kg.m− 3]
ɸ Volumetric Concentration [%]
η Thermal Efficiency [%]
β Fluid layer thickness [-]
Subscripts
a Aperture
bf base fluid
c collector
i inlet
o outlet
nf nanofluid
np nanoparticle
s solar
u useful
The stability of colloidal suspensions is one of the main issues which
aggravate at higher temperatures. Over the years, various techniques
have been developed and investigated to improve the stability of these
advanced fluids. In a research study [17], Aluminum oxide-based
nanofluids were prepared without the addition of surfactant. A mag­
netic stirrer operating at speed of 450 rpm was used followed by a ho­
mogenizer at speed of 24000 rpm for 30 min to get the stable
suspensions. Similarly, dispersion of Ceria nanoparticles in Ethylene
Glycol was carried out by using shear homogenization and probe
ultrasonication for 4 h [18]. The thermal conductivity of the resulting
nanofluids increased by 10.7 % for 1.0 vol% concentration of nano­
particles. However, a decreasing trend in the thermal conductivity was
observed by increasing the fluid temperature. In a later research [19],
CuO-water nanofluids were prepared with polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)
surfactant. Magnetic stirrer and ultrasonic bath were used to avoid
agglomeration and clustering. Thermal conductivity enhancement of 17
% was achieved at 25℃ with 6 vol% of nanoparticles which further
increased at higher temperatures. However, these fluids were not
employed in any thermal system or any solar collector to investigate
their heat transfer performance. Zennifer et al., [20] prepared CuO–­
Ethylene Glycol nanofluids without using surfactant. The nanoparticles
were dispersed in EG using Ultraturrax T25 at speed of 4000–20000 rpm
for 20 min and then probe sonication was used for deagglomeration.
About 14 % increase in thermal conductivity was observed at 50 ◦ C by
dispersing 1.0 vol% nanoparticles while corresponding increase in heat
transfer rate was 11.8 % under constant heat flux condition. Similarly,
Zinc Oxide-water nanofluids were prepared with help of sodium hex­
ametaphosphate as surfactant. ZnO nanoparticles were added to the
base fluid and homogenized for 20 min at 7000 rpm by using Ultraturrax
T25 followed by ultrasonication for 180 min [21]. The viscosity of
suspension behaved independent of temperature up to 35 ◦ C whereas it
decreased from 35 ◦ C to 55 ◦ C. Moreover, viscosity also increased by
excessive sonification due to reformation of aggregates. However, upper
limit of temperature was 55 ◦ C beyond which the effect on viscosity of
the nanofluids was not investigated. Another study [22] used two-step
method to prepare CuO-water nanofluids with the help of ultra­
sonication and Tiron as surfactant. About 13 % enhancement in thermal
conductivity was obtained with 0.016 vol% of CuO nanoparticles at
28℃ which further increased to 44 % at 55 ◦ C, mainly due to high aspect
ratio and Brownian motion of nanoparticles. Many other studies used
M.F. Zafar et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786

different methods to get stable suspensions. A summary of a few such
research studies employing different techniques to achieve stability of
metallic/nonmetallic based nanofluids is given in Table 1.
The selection of heat transfer fluids plays a fundamental role in the
performance of solar collectors. The nanofluids, with better thermal
properties, have emerged as potential candidate for use in solar collec­
tors such as parabolic troughs and heliostat power tower systems to
improve their thermal performance. The results presented in many
research studies indicate considerable improvement in the convective
heat transfer coefficient (HTC) and thermal efficiency of these collector.
A few of the past studies are summarized in Table 2.
A comprehensive review of the previously published literature shows
that application of nanofluids as heat transfer medium can considerably
enhance the thermal performance of concentrating solar collectors.
However, it is also noted that the past research studies were mainly
conducted theoretically. A few lab/small scale experimental in­
vestigations also showed encouraging results. Since the parabolic
troughs are high concentration solar collectors, the nanofluids used as
working mediums in these systems experience serious stability chal­
lenges especially at elevated temperatures. This is one of the main rea­
sons that despite the improvement in thermal performance the
widespread application of these fluids has yet not achieved commercial
acceptance in concentrating solar collectors.
Compound parabolic concentrating solar collectors have many ad­
vantages over their counterparts such as stationary installation, collec­
tion of direct and diffuse radiations, and maximum achievable
concentration ratio. The performance of these collectors can be further
improved by using innovative nanofluids as heat transfer mediums [41].
There are few numerical studies related to the use of metallic oxide-
based nanofluids in CPC collectors which indicate the potential advan­
tages [42,43]. However, experimental investigation of CPC collectors
using nanofluids is relatively under-researched. This paper presents a
detailed experimental investigation, stability analysis, and character­
ization of nanofluids as well as performance analysis of a low concen­
tration CPC solar collector using metallic oxides-based nanofluids in
subtropical climate conditions. This work is mainly focusing on the
preparation, stability analysis and characterization of metallic oxide
based nanofluids followed by experimental assessment of their thermal
effectiveness in a non-imaging stationary concentrating CPC collector in
actual weather conditions. The performance analysis of the CPC solar
collector is carried out at different operating conditions and the results
are presented accordingly. The results are compared with the conven­
tional heat transfer fluids including water and Ethylene Glycol at the
same flow rates. Better thermal efficiencies and output temperatures of
the system are achieved by utilizing nanofluids as compared to the
conventional fluids at the same flow rates and weather conditions.
Materials and methods
In this section, the selection of nanoparticles, base fluids, preparation
method of nanofluids, and characterization of colloidal suspensions are
described. The experimental setup and details about the main parame­
ters related to the performance estimation of the CPC solar collector are
also presented. Flow diagram of the research activities is shown in Fig. 1.
Experimental testing of the CPC collector is carried out using base
fluids as well as nanofluids with different concentrations of nano­
particles and flow rates. Comparison of the results will identify the best
option among the tested nanofluids to be suitable for use in CPC
collector.
Selection of nanoparticles
The selection of nanoparticles is done considering two main pa­
rameters like thermal conductivity of nanoparticles and viscosity of
nanoparticles after dispersion in conventional heat transfer fluids. The
comparison of the metallic oxides nanoparticles and viscosity and
thermal conductivity enhancement, when 5.0 vol% of these nano­
particles are dispersed in EG, is given in Table 3 [44].
MgO nanoparticles have highest thermal conductivity and maximum
thermal conductivity enhancement when dispersed in Ethylene Glycol.
Moreover, it also results in relatively lower viscosity. Among other
metallic oxides-based nanofluids, Al2O3 exhibits better performance
after MgO. Hence, these two nanoparticles are selected in the present
investigation while Ethylene Glycol is used as base fluid.
Highly pure nanoparticles were purchased from US Research Nano­
materials, Inc. [45] with an average diameter of 20 nm. The main
properties of the nanoparticles are listed in Table 4.
Preparation of nanofluids
The colloidal suspension of Al2O3, and MgO were prepared using
H2O and EG respectively as base fluids using a two-step method.
Different concentrations (0.025, 0.05, and 0.075 %) of nanoparticles
were prepared using a magnetic stirrer, ultra- Turrax shear homogenizer
followed by high energy sonication.
The weighed nanoparticles were mixed in the base fluids and
manually stirred with the help of a glass rod, then a magnetic stirrer was
used at 50 ◦ C and up to 900 rpm to disperse the nanoparticles into the
base fluids. For better homogenization of the mixtures, and Ultra-Turrax
shear homogenizer was used up to 12000 rpm. A small amount of So­
dium Dodecyl Benzene Sulphonate (SDBS) was used as a surfactant in
the nanofluids to avoid clustering of the nanoparticles. SDBS is an
anionic surfactant that is compatible with water and EG to stabilize the
nanomaterials as suggested in many studies [46–48]. Lastly, the
colloidal suspensions were sonicated in a bath sonicator for up to 2 h at
40Khz frequency. Step by step preparation procedure of nanofluids is
shown in Fig. 2.
The stability of nanofluids can be represented with the help of zeta
potential measurement of two adjacent, similarly charged particles in a
dispersion. High zeta potential values indicate the stability of

Table 1
Comparison of nanofluids stability based on preparation methods.
Reference Material of Base fluid Stability Homogenizer Stirring time (min) Sonication Stability duration (day)
nanoparticles Method Time (min) Time (hr)

[23] Al2O3 Water Visual observation – – 1–5 20

[24] CuO Water Visual observation – 180 12 4
[25] CuO EG Visual observation – 30 3 4
[26] ZnO, CuO DI Water Zeta potential – 35 2–8 74
UV–Vis
[27] MWCNTs EG Visual observation – 180 4 30
[28] MWCNT Water Visual observation – 120 1 30
[29] MWCNT DI Water Zeta potential, – 45 1 60
UV–Vis,
[30] SWCNTs DI Water Zeta potential 30 – 1 30
[31] MWCNTs Water Zeta potential 30 110 1 30
Present study MgO, Al2O3 DI Water, EG Zeta potential 30 45 2 21

3
M.F. Zafar et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786

Table 2
Performance enhancement of nanofluids-based parabolic trough solar collectors.
Reference Investigation Base-fluid Nanoparticles Concentration of Flow range Important findings
mode nanoparticles

[32] Theoretical Thermal Al2O3 1–2 vol% – Thermal efficiency increased by 4.25 %
oil
[33] Theoretical Water TiO2, SiO2, Fe2O3, 0.01–35 wt% 0.5–1.5 kg/s Nanofluid enhanced convective HTC and reduced
ZnO, Al2O3, Au thermal losses
[34] Theoretical Synthetic Al2O3 0–8.0 vol% 4.92–104 m3/h Thermal efficiency enhanced by 7.6 vol% at a flow
oil rate of 25 m3/h
[35] Theoretical Syltherm Al2O3 0–4.0 vol% – Efficiency increased by 10 % with 4.0 vol% of
800 nanoparticles
[36] Theoretical Water CuO, Al2O3 0.5–3.0 vol% – Heat transfer increased by 35 % using CuO
nanofluid
[37] Theoretical Synthetic Al2O3 0–5.0 vol% 0.61–0.66 kg/s HTC increased with rise in nanoparticles
oil concentration
[38] Theoretical Synthetic Al2O3 3.0–5.0 vol% 0.9 kg/s HTC enhanced with increasing vol. % of
oil nanoparticles
[39] Theoretical & Water CuO 0.002 vol% to 0.008 vol% 0.3, 1.0, and 1.6 Thermal efficiency increased from 18 % to 52 % by
Experimental lit/min increasing the volume fraction from 0.002 % to
0.008 %
[40] Experimental Water, CuO-Al2O3 0.002–0.008 vol% (CuO), 0.167–1.67 lit/ Thermal efficiency 48.3 % achieved at 0.2 vol% of
Water-EG 0.05–0.2 vol% (Al2O3) min Al2O3 & 0.008 vol% of CuO
(50–50 %)

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of research activities.

Table 3
Comparison of thermal conductivity and viscosity of metallic oxides nanoparticles and their suspensions (5.0 vol%) in Ethylene Glycol.
Nanoparticles Thermal conductivity Density Crystalline Viscosity (cP) Thermal conductivity enhancement (%)
(W/mk) (g/cm3) Structure

MgO 48.4 2.9 Cubic 17.4 40.6

TiO2 8.4 4.1 Anatase 31.2 27.2
ZnO 13.0 5.6 Wurtzite 129.2 26.8
Al2O3 36.0 3.6 γ 28.2 28.2
SiO2 10.4 2.6 Noncrystalline 31.5 25.3

4
M.F. Zafar et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786

Table 4
keff 0.404 )
Properties of the selected nanoparticles. (3)
(− 0.0415−
= 0.911*T ln(ɸ)
kf
Properties MgO Al2O3

Average diameter (nm) 20 20

Morphology (γ) Spherical Spherical
Particle color White White
Specific heat (J/kg.K) 1030 880
Density (kg/m3) 3580 3890
nanofluids, resulting in that the nanoparticles inside the dispersion resist
aggregation.
Thermal conductivity measurement
The thermal conductivity of nanofluids with various volumetric
concentrations (0.025, 0.05, 0.075 %) was measured at 25 ◦ C by using
TEMPOS thermal analyzer instrument manufactured by Decagon De­
vices Inc. shown in Fig. 3. The instrument works based on the transient
hot-wire approach. The KS-3 sensor of the TEMPOS thermal analyzer
was used for this experimentation which takes measurements after 1 min
of stable nanofluid. The accuracy of the device is ± 10 %. Calibration of
the equipment was done before the start of the experimentation. The
experiments were repeated three times for each case and the average
value is reported. A hot water bath was used to stabilize the tempera­
ture. The dispersion stability of the nanofluid is important because if
there is no dispersion or weak dispersion stability of the nanofluid then
the thermal conductivity values might be disturbed because the nano­
particles stick to the needle of the KS-3 sensor and the results will not be
according to expectation.
Experimental data obtained from TEMPOS thermal analyzer is also
compared with the analytical model proposed by Yu and Choi [49] given
in Eq. (1) and the experimental data published earlier of thermal con­
ductivity ratio of Al2O3/H2O nanofluid with different volumetric con­
centrations given in Eqs. (2) and (3).
Dynamic viscosity measurement
The viscosity of nanofluid is also critical as it is directly related to the
flow characteristics and pumping power requirement. Nanofluids are
prepared in various concentrations (0.025, 0.05, 0.075 %). The equip­
ment used to measure dynamic viscosity is shown in Fig. 4. First of all,
the temperature range of the testing chamber is fixed and then the
experimentation is performed by inserting nanofluids into the chamber
which contains 30 ml of the sample volume. An air conditioner (LAUDA
ECO RE 620) is coupled with the Rheometer (Rheotest RN 5.1) used for
the stabilization of temperature. The recorded data file is generated by
the device software on the coupled computer device. In this experi­
mental study, the factors affecting the viscosity of the nanofluids i.e.,
temperature, shear rate, and volumetric concentration of nanoparticles
in the base fluid are examined.
Specific heat capacity
Heat capacity is another important property that influences the rate
of heat transfer. Specific heat capacity is the amount of heat required to
raise the temperature of unit mass of fluid by unit degree. The specific
heat capacity of nanofluids is determined using equation (4) as

keff kp + 2kf + 2(kp − kf )(1 + β)3 ɸ

= (1)
kf kp + 2kf − 2(kp − kf )(1 + β)3 ɸ

Eq. (2) is used to measure thermal conductivity which involves both

temperature and volumetric concentration of nanoparticles in a nano­
fluid. This model is applicable for the temperature of 27–36 ◦ C [50].
keff
= 1 + 3.76108ɸ + 0.017924T − 0.30734 (2)
kf

A correlation derived from experimental results as a function of

temperature and volume fraction of nanoparticles used to measure the
thermal conductivity ratio of Al2O3/H2O nanofluids given in Eq. (3)
Fig. 3. TEMPOS thermal analyzer with KS-3 sensor.
[51].

Fig. 2. Preparation of nanofluids (a) Direct Mixing (b) Magnetic Stirring (c) Shear Homogenization (d) Ultrasonication.

5
M.F. Zafar et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786

Fig. 4. Rheometer (RHEOTEST RN5.1) with air conditioner.

presented in [52].
Qu
η= (5)
Cpnf = (1 − ɸ)Cpbf + ɸCpnp (4) Qs

This model is based on volume concentration of nanoparticles and The useful solar thermal energy gain is determined by equation (6).
takes account of liquid-particles equilibrium in the mixture formula. Qu = ṁ*Cp *(To − Ti ) (6)
Summary of thermophysical properties of the base fluids and nanofluids
used in the present study, which include density, thermal conductivity The solar energy entering the collector is given by equation (7).
and dynamic viscosity, is given in Table 5. Qs = Aa *Ge (7)
Where Ge is the effective solar irradiance and Aa is the aperture area
Limitations of nanofluids
of the CPC collector.

Although nanofluids are utilized for better thermal performance of

the heat transfer systems but there are few limitations associated with Experimental setup and measurement procedure
them.
The experimental test rig used in the current investigation uses low-
• Nanoparticles tend to agglomerate and settle down especially at cost local materials that consists of a CPC trough mounted on a steel
higher temperatures causing stability issues. frame, storage tanks and allied piping as shown in Fig. 5. The CPC trough
• Nanoparticles can corrode or erode the metallic parts of the system is made of polished Stainless steel (Austenitic) and non-magnetic
and even block the flow path of fluid. reflecting sheet riveted at the ends on steel strips bent in compound
• Nanoparticles can cause etching and allergy to human skin due to parabolic shape. The diameter of the absorber in evacuated receiver tube
their toxicity without using precautionary gadgets. is 0.034 m and its length is 1.858 m. The concentration ratio and
aperture area for this collector is 4.17 and 0.828 m2 respectively. The
CPC reflecting sheet directs all incident radiations onto its focal line
Performance parameters where receiver tube is placed. The concentrated radiations are absorbed
by the absorber tube which is then transferred to the fluid circulating
After the inclusion of the thermal conductivity analytical models and through it.
published data correlations, performance parameters such as useful The CPC collector was placed in the East-West direction for the
solar energy gain and efficiency of the system can find out with the help whole experimentation due to higher sunlight hours available in this
of equations 5–7 [53,54]. The mass flow rate and temperature difference direction as compared to North-South. Seasonal tilt was required to
of the nanofluids play an important role in determining the efficiency of better capture the incident radiation by the receiver. Experimentation of
the system. The system thermal efficiency is used to determine the nanofluids and conventional fluids like water in CPC was done in a
working of the system i.e., how much amount of heat is converted into closed loop. Polypropylene pipes and fitting were used to connect the
the generation of power or work. absorber tube with the fluid tanks. The cold fluid entered the absorber
The thermal efficiency of CPC is calculated by equation (5). with the help of a pump and exchanged heat with the absorber tube and
eventually raised the fluid temperature. This hot fluid is then collected
Table 5 at a hot fluid storage tank and then supplied again to the inlet side of the
Thermophysical properties of the base fluids and the nanofluids. absorber. The K-type thermocouples were installed at the inlet and
Type of fluid ρ[kg.m− 3] K [W m− 1
K− 1] @25 ◦ C µ [mPa.s] @20 ◦ C outlet of the absorber for the measurement of temperature. A flowmeter
Water 1000 0.641 1.0016 coupled with Arduino was used to measure the flow of the fluid. The
Ethylene Glycol 1110 0.2551 19.1 solar radiations were measured with the help of a Pyranometer. K-type
Al2O3- Water 1212.9 0.9018 1.99 thermocouple and anemometer were used to measure the ambient
Al2O3- EG – 0.3496 30.97 temperature and wind velocity respectively. After every experiment,
MgO- EG 0.3549 22.29
nanofluid needs to be prepared before the next day experimentation to
–

6
M.F. Zafar et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786

Fig. 5. Experimental setup (a) schematic diagram, (b) actual photograph.

ensure mixing and to avoid the stability issues. The experimentation was instruments used in the experimental testing is given in Table 6. The
carried out for 6 h from 10:00 to 15:00 h daily. total uncertainty in the measured values of thermal efficiency is 3.32 %.

Uncertainty Analysis: Results and discussion

The uncertainty in the performance parameter such as thermal effi­ In this section, stability analysis and experimentally measured
ciency is calculated by root sum square method given in Equation (8) thermophysical properties including thermal conductivity, and dynamic
[55]. viscosity of the metallic oxide nanofluids is presented. Subsequently, the
If y = f (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5……). performance of a stationary low concentrating CPC collector using
√(̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ ( ) nanofluids as working mediums is evaluated in terms of temperature
)2 ( )2 ( )2
√ ∂y ∂y ∂y difference achieved, heat gain, and thermal efficiency of the system
Wy = √ Wx + Wx + Wx +⋯ (8)
∂x1 1 ∂x2 2 ∂x3 3 under subtropical climate conditions.

The details of the measuring range and uncertainty of the

Stability analysis

Stability analysis of metallic oxides-based nanofluids was carried out

Table 6 with the help of zeta potential measurement. It is an intensity-based
Measuring range and uncertainty of equipment.
distribution in which total counts represent that how much photon
Parameters Equipment Measuring Range counts contributed to the signal from the various apparent zeta potential
Thermal Conductivity TEMPOS Thermal Analyzer 0.2–2 W/m.K ± 10 % bins. Zeta potential values were measured in mV. Zeta potential can be
Solar irradiance Pyranometer 0–2000 W/m2 ± 1–3 positive or negative. Zeta potential greater than 30 mV indicates the
Temperature thermocouple (K- type) ± 0.1 ◦ C good stability of the nanofluids. In the present investigation, the mea­
Fluid Flowrate Flow sensor 1–30 lpm ± 2 %
surements were taken at two different temperatures i.e., 25 ◦ C and 65 ◦ C

7
M.F. Zafar et al.
Fig. 6. Zeta potential measurement of Al2O3/EG nanofluid at (a) 25 ◦ C, (b) 65 ◦ C.
for the highest volumetric concentration i.e., 0.075 %. Zeta potential
measurement of Al2O3/EG nanofluid at 25 ◦ C and 65 ◦ C is shown in
Fig. 6. The average zeta potential obtained for this nanofluid was –33.45
mV and − 20.5 mV at 25 ◦ C and 65 ◦ C respectively. The stated zeta
potential values lie in good stability range at 25 C and normal stability
◦
slab at 65 C.◦
Zeta potential measurements for Al2O3/H2O nanofluid at 25 ◦ C and
65 ◦ C are shown in Fig. 7. The average zeta potential obtained for these
nanofluids was –23.5 mV and − 21.6 mV at 25 ◦ C and 65 ◦ C respectively.
The stated zeta potential values lie in the normal stability slab.
Zeta potential measurement of MgO/EG nanofluid at 25 ◦ C and 65 C
◦
is shown in Fig. 8. The Zeta potential obtained by this nanofluid is + 32
mV and + 19 mV at 25 ◦ C and 65 ◦ C respectively. The stated zeta po­
tential values lie in a good stability slab at 25 ◦ C but it is in a normal
stability slab at 65 ◦ C.
It is observed that nanofluids using EG as base fluid exhibit relatively
better stability that can be ascribed to higher viscosity of the base fluid.
Moreover, the stability of colloidal suspensions shows negative relation
with temperature probably due to weakening of inter molecular forces at
higher temperatures.
8
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786
Characterization of nanofluids
The prepared metallic oxides based nanofluids were characterized to
determine their thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity at different
volumetric concentrations and temperature ranges. Thermal conduc­
tivity and dynamic viscosity enhancement are examined by comparing
with reference values of the base fluids i.e., water and Ethylene Glycol.
Effective thermal conductivity
The thermal conductivity of the nanofluids with volumetric con­
centrations (0.025, 0.05, 0.075 %) was measured at 25 ◦ C by TEMPOS
thermal analyzer instrument. A hot water bath was used to stabilize the
temperature. The experiments were repeated three times for each case
and the average values are reported. It is observed that the thermal
conductivity of the nanofluids has a direct relationship with the volu­
metric concentration of the nanoparticles i.e., the thermal conductivity
of nanofluids increases with the increase in the volume fraction of the
nanoparticles in the base fluid. The dispersion stability of the nanofluids
is important because it directly effects their thermophysical properties.
If there is no dispersion stability or weak dispersion stability of the
M.F. Zafar et al.
Fig. 7. Zeta potential measurement of Al2O3/H2O nanofluid at (a) 25 ◦ C, (b) 65 ◦ C.
nanoparticles, then the thermal conductivity values might be disturbed
because the nanoparticles stick to the needle of the KS-3 sensor and the
accuracy of the results is compromised.
Comparison of experimental data obtained from TEMPOS thermal
analyzer with the analytical models and the experimental data published
earlier is shown in Fig. 9 (a). Thermal conductivity ratio of Al2O3/H2O
nanofluid with different volumetric concentrations is shown in Fig. 9 (a)
while Fig. 9 (b) gives the comparison for Al2O3/EG. The thermal con­
ductivity value of distilled water is 0.641 W/m.K is used as a reference. It
is observed that the thermal conductivity of the stated nanofluid
increased with the increase in the volumetric concentration of the
nanoparticles in the base fluid. The experimental results show a similar
trend as obtained by the analytical model [50] and experimental results
published in [51]. The experimentally obtained thermal conductivity
lies between the analytical model and published experimental data.
Comparison of the experimental results and previously published
data [56] of thermal conductivity ratio of Al2O3/EG nanofluid is shown
in Fig. 9 (b). The thermal conductivity of Ethylene Glycol is 0.2551 W/
mK is used as reference. The thermal conductivity measurements are
done at 25 ◦ C. The average value of three observations is noted for every
volumetric concentration of nanoparticles. It can be observed that the
9
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786
experimental values obtained in the present investigation lie in the
range of 1.0948 to 1.3704 W/mK. The enhancement in thermal con­
ductivity of Al2O3/EG with higher concentration of nanoparticles is
found more pronounced as compared to Al2O3/H2O. It can be ascribed to
dominating effect of nanoparticles as the thermal conductivity of EG is
less than that of water.
Comparison of experimental results of the present investigation and
previously published data [49,57] for MgO/EG nanofluids with different
volumetric concentrations is shown in Fig. 10. The thermal conductivity
of the stated nanofluid increased with the increase in the volumetric
concentration of the nanoparticles in the base fluid. The dispersion
stability of the MgO/EG plays important role in the measurement of
thermal conductivity of the nanofluid. A higher value of thermal con­
ductivity ratio (1.39) is obtained at 0.075 % volumetric concentration of
nanoparticles.
Effective dynamic viscosity
Thermal conductivity of the conventional heat transfer fluids is
enhanced by dispersing nanoparticles which in turn can improve the
overall heat transfer performance of thermal systems. However, addi­
tion of solid particles in base fluids also increase their viscosity which
M.F. Zafar et al.
Fig. 8. Zeta potential measurement of MgO/EG nanofluid at (a) 25 ◦ C (b) 65 ◦ C.
negatively effects the flow characteristics. Therefore, it is imperative to
analyze the effect of adding nanoparticles in the base fluids on the vis­
cosity of the resulting nanofluids. In this experimental study, the factors
affecting the dynamic viscosity of the nanofluids such as temperature,
shear rate, and volumetric concentration of nanoparticles in the base
fluid are examined.
Effect of temperature and volumetric concentration. The dynamic viscosity
of Al2O3/H2O, and Al2O3/EG nanofluids is measured using rheometer
(Rheotest RN 5.1) at a shear rate of 200 s− 1 and the results are presented
in Fig. 11. The volumetric concentration of nanoparticles has a direct
relationship with the dynamic viscosity of the nanofluid. The viscosity of
the nanofluid increases with the increase in nanoparticles concentration.
The enhancement in dynamic viscosity at higher concentration of
nanoparticles is more pronounced and thus leads to the instability of the
nanofluids. The reason can be ascribed to high attractive forces between
nanoparticles which lead to clustering of particles resulting in instability
of the suspensions. Whereas the viscosity of the nanofluids has negative
temperature coefficient and it decreases with increase in temperature,
but the change is nonlinear. At high temperature, the molecules of the
10
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786
fluid absorb more energy, and move faster. Thus, the intermolecular
forces become weaker and result in the decrement of viscosity.
Fig. 12 represent variation in the dynamic viscosity of MgO/EG
nanofluids with different concentrations of nanoparticles at a shear rate
of 200 s− 1. The dynamic viscosity of nanofluids enhanced by increasing
the volumetric concentration of the nanoparticles whereas temperature
has negative effect on the viscosity. The possible reason for the variation
in dynamic viscosity of nanofluids as function of nanoparticles con­
centration and temperature are explained in the last paragraph.
Comparative analysis of the results indicates that the enhancement
in dynamic viscosity of MgO/EG nanofluid is less than the Al2O3/EG as
compared to the EG as conventional fluid.
The prepared nanofluids were charged into the developed CPC col­
lector. The experimentation was carried under actual outdoor weather
conditions and the data collected was analyzed. Accordingly, the results
are presented in the following sections.
Performance of CPC solar collector
Performance of the developed CPC solar collector is analyzed by
M.F. Zafar et al.
Fig. 9. Variation in thermal conductivity ratio with nanoparticles concentra­
tions of (a) Al2O3/H2O, (b) Al2O3/EG.
Fig. 10. Variation in thermal conductivity ratio of MgO/EG with different
concentrations of nanoparticles.
comparing the temperature difference across the receiver tubes, heat
gain by the collector, and thermal efficiency of the system. Three
metallic oxides based nanofluids (MgO/EG, Al2O3/EG, Al2O3/H2O) with
three volumetric concentrations (0.025 %, 0.05 %, 0.075 %) were used
as heat transfer fluids at two flowrates (0.015 kg/s, 0.02 kg/s). Con­
ventional heat transfer fluids i.e., water and EG were also employed as
working mediums, and the results are compared with those obtained by
using metallic oxides-based nanofluids.
Weather conditions
The experimental testing is carried out in the subtropical climatic
conditions of Taxila (33.76◦ N, 72.82◦ E), Pakistan. The weather data
including solar irradiance and ambient temperature were measured by
11
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786
Fig. 11. Variation in dynamic viscosity with temperature and volumetric
concentration of (a) Al2O3/ H2O, and (b) Al2O3/EG, at 200 s− 1 shear rate.
Fig. 12. Variation in viscosity of MgO/EG with temperature and volumetric
concentration at 200 s− 1 shear rate.
using a Pyranometer and a K-type thermocouple respectively. The solar
irradiance was measured by using Pyranometer for 6 h on daily basis
during the whole experimentation period. The weather data at the test
site was recorded during the months of February and March 2021 and
average values for the repeated experimentations were determined
which are shown in Fig. 13. The solar irradiance varied from 560 W/m2
to 770 W/m2 during whole experimentation while the ambient tem­
perature remained in the range of 22 ◦ C to 27 ◦ C. Both, solar irradiance
and the ambient temperature followed almost similar trends increasing
from the morning, reaching to maximum value at noon and then
decreased again. The efficiency of the solar collector system is mainly
influenced by intensity of the solar radiation which is dependent on
M.F. Zafar et al.
Fig. 13. Weather conditions at the experimental site during the experimenta­
tion period.
many factors including weather conditions, relative location of the
system on earth and time of the year.
Output temperature
The thermal analysis presented in the current study is based on the
experimental data collected by testing CPC collectors under actual
weather conditions. Different heat transfer fluids including base fluids i.
e., water and EG as well as nanofluids with three volumetric concen­
trations were used at two different flow rates. The temperature differ­
ence obtained by using Ethylene Glycol and MgO/EG nanofluid with
multiple volumetric concentrations of nanoparticles at mass flowrates
0.02 and 0.015 kg/s respectively is shown in Fig. 14. A significant in­
crease in the temperature change is recorded by usage nanofluids in
comparison to base fluid which can be ascribed to higher thermal con­
ductivity of the nanofluids as compared to base fluid. Maximum tem­
perature difference of 5.92 ◦ C and 6.39 ◦ C is achieved by using
nanofluids with 0.025 % and 0.075 % volumetric concentrations of MgO
nanoparticles respectively at flow rate of 0.02 kg/s as depicted in Fig. 14
(a). Similarly, temperature difference of 8.11 ◦ C and 8.64 ◦ C is obtained
by using nanofluids with 0.025 % and 0.075 % volumetric concentra­
tions respectively operating at flow rate of 0.015 kg/s as shown in
Fig. 14 (b). The highest temperature is achieved at the noon time due to
higher intensity of solar irradiance.
Fig. 14. Temperature difference with various volumetric concentrations of MgO/EG nanofluids at flow rate of (a) 0.02 kg/s, (b) 0.015 kg/s.
12
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786
The temperature difference obtained by using Ethylene Glycol and
Al2O3/EG nanofluids at mass flowrate of 0.02 kg/s and 0.015 kg/s is
shown in Fig. 15. Ethylene Glycol and nanofluids with multiple volu­
metric concentrations of Al2O3 nanoparticles are used as a working
fluid. Maximum temperature difference of 5.79 ◦ C and 6.25 ◦ C is ob­
tained for 0.025 % and 0.075 % volumetric concentrations at flow rate
of 0.02 kg/s respectively as illustrated in Fig. 15 (a). Similarly, a tem­
perature difference of 7.99 ◦ C and 8.59 ◦ C is obtained using 0.025 % and
0.075 % volumetric concentrations at flow rate of 0.015 kg/s respec­
tively as shown in Fig. 15 (b). This improvement in the temperature
difference means more heat is collected and transported by nanofluids as
compared to base fluid which can be due to higher thermal conductivity
of the colloidal suspensions.
Comparative analysis of Fig. 15 (a) and (b) indicates that tempera­
ture difference of 4.16 ◦ C and 5.63 ◦ C is obtained by using Ethylene
Glycol at flow rate of 0.02 kg/s and 0.015 kg/s respectively. Thus, flow
rate has negative relation with increase in temperature which is quite
logical since fluid gets less time for heat collection at higher flow rates.
However, the rate of heat collection can be increased by increasing the
flow rate.
The temperature difference achieved by using Al2O3/H2O nanofluids
with multiple volumetric concentrations at mass flowrates of 0.02 kg/s
and 0.015 kg/s respectively is shown in Fig. 16. It is found that tem­
perature difference of 6.13 ◦ C and 6.99 ◦ C is obtained for 0.025 % and
0.075 % volumetric concentrations at flow rate of 0.02 kg/s respectively
as depicted in Fig. 16 (a). whereas a maximum temperature difference of
8.35 ◦ C and 9.54 ◦ C is obtained for 0.025 % and 0.075 % volumetric
concentrations at 0.015 kg/s respectively as given in Fig. 16 (b). By
utilization of distilled water, a temperature difference of 4.56 ◦ C and
6.16 ◦ C is obtained at flow rate of 0.02 kg/s and 0.015 kg/s respectively.
Comparison of the results indicate that the temperature difference ob­
tained by using water as a working fluid is greater than by using
Ethylene Glycol as heat transfer medium due to the reason that thermal
conductivity of water is more than EG. However, temperature difference
achieved by using nanofluids is more than by using base fluids. More­
over, highest temperature difference is achieved at noon due to peak
values of incoming solar irradiance.
Comparison of the temperature difference obtained by using nano­
fluids with lowest volumetric concentration (0.025 %) and highest
volumetric concentration (0.075 %) in water and EG at flow rate of 0.02
kg/s and 0.015 kg/s is shown in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18 respectively. The
highest temperature difference is obtained at noon when radiations
coming from the sun are at their peak. The highest temperature differ­
ence is achieved by utilizing Al2O3/H2O nanofluid. Temperature
M.F. Zafar et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786

Fig. 15. Temperature difference with different volumetric concentrations of Al2O3/EG nanofluid at flow rate of (a) 0.02 kg/s and (b) 0.015 kg/s.

Fig. 16. Temperature difference with different volumetric concentrations of Al2O3/H2O nanofluid at flow rate (a) 0.02 kg/s and (b) 0.015 kg/s.

Fig. 17. Comparison of temperature difference using nanofluids with 0.025 % concentration of nanoparticles at flow rate of (a) 0.02 kg/s (b) 0.015 kg/s.

13
M.F. Zafar et al.
Fig. 18. Comparison of temperature difference using nanofluids with 0.075 % volumetric concentration of nanoparticles at flow rate of (a) 0.02 kg/s and (b) 0.015
kg/s.
difference of 6.13 ◦ C and 8.35 ◦ C is achieved for 0.025 % volumetric
concentration at mass flow rate of 0.02 kg/s and 0.015 kg/s respectively
while temperature difference of 6.58 ◦ C and 8.93 ◦ C is achieved by using
nanofluid with 0.075 % volumetric concentration at flow rate of 0.02
kg/s and 0.015 kg/s respectively.
Heat gain
The temperature difference and specific heat capacity of working
fluids play an important role in determining the heat gain of the system.
Equation (6) is used to calculate the useful heat gain under different
operating conditions. Rate of the heat gain by using nanofluids with
0.025 % and 0.075 % volumetric concentration at mass flow rate of 0.02
kg/s and 0.015 kg/s is shown in Fig. 19 and Fig. 20 respectively.
Maximum rate of heat gain of 385.54 W and 402.21 W is obtained at
noon time by using 0.025 % volumetric concentration at 0.02 kg/s,
0.015 kg/s respectively. Similarly, peak value heat gain rate of 408.96 W
and 413.98 W is achieved by using 0.075 % volumetric concentration at
0.02 kg/s, 0.015 kg/s respectively. The highest rate of heat gain is
achieved by employing Al2O3/H2O nanofluid at a mass flow rate of
0.015 kg/s at noon. This makes sense since the rate of heat gain depends
on temperature difference which is highest by using Al2O3/H2O as HTF.
Fig. 19. Comparison of heat gain by using base fluids and nanofluids with 0.025 % volumetric concentration of nanoparticles at flow rate of (a) 0.02 kg/s and (b)
0.015 kg/s.
14
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786
Moreover, higher gain rate is achieved by using nanofluids with higher
concentration of nanoparticles.
Thermal efficiency
The thermal efficiency is one of the main parameters which char­
acterizes the overall performance of the solar thermal collector. It is
affected by various factors such as solar irradiance, type of heat transfer
fluid, its mass flow rate and heat capacity. Thermal efficiency is directly
influenced by the intensity of solar radiations. The experimental results
revealed that the thermal performance of the CPC collector increases by
using nanofluids as compared to conventional heat transfer fluids when
operating under similar weather conditions and flow rates. The possible
reason that can be ascribed to this improvement in thermal performance
is better thermal properties of nanofluids. Thermal efficiency of the CPC
collector employing nanofluids with 0.025 % and 0.075 % volumetric
concentrations of nanoparticles at different flow rates are shown in
Fig. 21 and Fig. 22 respectively. The thermal efficiency of the collector is
found higher at relatively low flow rate probably due to the reason that
the temperature difference between inlet and outlet of the receiver tubes
is higher at lower flow rates. Maximum thermal efficiency of 72.21 %
and 74.28 % is achieved for 0.025 % volumetric concentration at flow
M.F. Zafar et al.
Fig. 20. Comparison of heat gain by using base fluids and nanofluids with 0.075 % volumetric concentration of nanoparticles at flow rate of (a) 0.02 kg/s and (b)
0.015 kg/s.
Fig. 21. Comparison of efficiency of CPC collector using based fluids and nanofluids with 0.025 % volumetric concentration of nanoparticles at flow rate of (a) 0.02
kg/s and (b) 0.015 kg/s.
rate of 0.02, 0.015 kg/s respectively as depicted in Fig. 21. Thermal
efficiency of 74.96 % and 76.28 % is obtained for 0.075 % volumetric
concentration at flow rate of 0.02 and 0.015 kg/s respectively as shown
in Fig. 22. Comparative analysis of the experimental results reveal that
the highest thermal efficiency is achieved by using Al2O3/H2O nanofluid
as heat transfer medium. Moreover, thermal efficiency curves follow the
trends of solar irradiance and maximum efficiency is achieved at noon
time when the solar radiation is at its peak.
A comparison of efficiency enhancement by using metallic oxides
based nanofluids as heat transfer mediums in the CPC collector is shown
in Fig. 23. Thermal efficiency enhancement is maximum for MgO/EG
nanofluid whereas it is minimum for Al2O3/H2O nanofluid. This is in
line with the fact that thermal conductivity of water is higher than EG
which gives greater temperature difference and hence higher thermal
efficiency. Thermal efficiency enhancement of 25.03 % and 24.02 % is
achieved by using MgO/EG nanofluid at flow rate of 0.015 kg/s and
0.02 kg/s respectively. Similarly, the efficiency enhancement of 22.32 %
& 22.029 % is obtained by employing Al2O3/EG nanofluid at mass flow
rate of 0.015 kg/s and 0.02 kg/s respectively. Whereas the increase in
thermal efficiency of 13.26 % and 12.83 % is achieved by using Al2O3/
15
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786
H2O at flow rate of 0.015 kg/s and 0.02 kg/s respectively. Thus, it is
deduced from the experimental results that although highest thermal
efficiency is achieved by employing Al2O3/H2O nanofluids, the effi­
ciency enhancement is maximum in case of using MgO/EG as heat
transfer fluid as compared to base fluids.
Conclusions
In the present work, experimental analysis of metallic oxide-based
nanofluids of Al2O3 and MgO using water and EG as base fluids is car­
ried out with the objective of employing in a low concentration CPC
collector to evaluate their thermal performance. The conclusions drawn
from this investigation are appended below.
▪ The maximum thermal conductivity enhancement of 33.80 % is
noted for Al2O3/H2O while minimum viscosity enhancement of
11.83 % is recorded for MgO/EG nanofluids with 0.075 vol%
concentration.
M.F. Zafar et al.
Fig. 22. Comparison of efficiency of CPC collector by using base fluids and nanofluids with 0.075 % concentration of nanoparticles at flow rate of (a) 0.02 kg/s and
(b) 0.015 kg/s.
Fig. 23. Comparison of the efficiency enhancement by using nanofluids at
different mass flowrates.
▪ The nanofluids with higher concentration of nanoparticles yield
higher outlet temperatures and more heat gain at relatively
lower flow rate resulting in better thermal efficiency.
▪ A maximum temperature difference of 9.54 ◦ C is achieved by
using Al2O3/H2O nanofluid with 0.075 vol% at a flow rate of
0.015 kg/s. The corresponding maximum thermal efficiency
achieved under these conditions is 76.28 %. Moreover, an
enhancement of 13.26 % and 12.83 % in thermal efficiency is
achieved by using Al2O3/H2O nanofluids at flowrates of 0.015
kg/s and 0.02 kg/s respectively. MgO/EG nanofluid exhibited
25.03 % and 24.02 % increase in thermal efficiency at mass
flowrates of 0.015 kg/s and 0.02 kg/s respectively.
▪ In future, hybrid nanofluids (mixture of metallic and non-
metallic based nanofluids) can be tested in CPC collectors for
their performance assessment. Oil based nanofluids can also be
tested and array of CPCs can be used to achieve relatively
higher operating temperatures.
16
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
Authors are thankful to the Higher Education Commission of
Pakistan for providing financial support through the NRPU-10483
project.
References
[1] Aydin G. The Modeling and Projection of Primary Energy Consumption by the
Sources. Energy Sources Part B 2015;10(1):67–74.
[2] Gorjian S, et al. A review on recent advancements in performance enhancement
techniques for low-temperature solar collectors. Energy Convers Manage 2020;222.
[3] Ejaz A, et al. Concentrated photovoltaics as light harvesters: Outlook, recent
progress, and challenges. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess 2021;46:101199.
[4] Shah SAA, Solangi YA. A sustainable solution for electricity crisis in Pakistan:
opportunities, barriers, and policy implications for 100% renewable energy.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2019;26(29):29687–703.
[5] Tahir ZR, Asim M. Surface measured solar radiation data and solar energy resource
assessment of Pakistan: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:2839–61.
[6] Verma SK, Gupta NK, Rakshit D. A comprehensive analysis on advances in
application of solar collectors considering design, process and working fluid
parameters for solar to thermal conversion. Sol Energy 2020;208:1114–50.
[7] Kumar L, Hasanuzzaman M, Rahim NA. Global advancement of solar thermal
energy technologies for industrial process heat and its future prospects: A review.
Energy Convers Manage 2019;195:885–908.
[8] Xu X, et al. Prospects and problems of concentrating solar power technologies for
power generation in the desert regions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:
1106–31.
[9] Akhter J, et al. Optical Performance Analysis of Single Flow Through and
Concentric Tube Receiver Coupled with a Modified CPC Collector Under Different
Configurations. Energies 2019;12(21):4147.
[10] Akhter J, et al. Characterization and stability analysis of oil-based copper oxide
nanofluids for medium temperature solar collectors. Materialwiss Werkstofftech
2019;50(3):311–9.
[11] Akhter J, et al. Experimental evaluation of thermophysical properties of oil-based
titania nanofluids for medium temperature solar collectors. Materialwiss
Werkstofftech 2020;51(6):792–802.
[12] Lu L, Liu Z-H, Xiao H-S. Thermal performance of an open thermosyphon using
nanofluids for high-temperature evacuated tubular solar collectors: Part 1: Indoor
experiment. Sol Energy 2011;85(2):379–87.
M.F. Zafar et al.
[13] Liu Z-H, et al. Thermal performance of an open thermosyphon using nanofluid for
evacuated tubular high temperature air solar collector. Energy Convers Manage
2013;73:135–43.
[14] Liu Z-H, et al. Influence of carbon nanotube suspension on the thermal
performance of a miniature thermosyphon. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2010;53(9–10):
1914–20.
[15] Xue HS, et al. The interface effect of carbon nanotube suspension on the thermal
performance of a two-phase closed thermosyphon. J Appl Phys 2006;100(10):
104909.
[16] Noie SH, et al. Heat transfer enhancement using Al2O3/water nanofluid in a two-
phase closed thermosyphon. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2009;30(4):700–5.
[17] Afifah AN, Syahrullail S, Che Sidik NA. Natural convection of alumina-distilled
water nanofluid in cylindrical enclosure: an experimental study. J Adv Res Fluid
Mech Therm Sci 2020;12(1):1–10.
[18] E, e.j.m.,, et al. Cerium oxide–ethylene glycol nanofluids with improved transport
properties: Preparation and elucidation of mechanism. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng
2015;49:183–91.
[19] Sahooli M, Sabbaghi S, Shariaty Niassar M. Preparation of CuO/water nanofluids
using polyvinylpyrolidone and a survey on its stability and thermal conductivity.
Int J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2012;8(1):27–34.
[20] Zennifer MA, et al. Development of Cuo ethylene glycol nanofluids for efficient
energy management: Assessment of potential for energy recovery. Energy Convers
Manage 2015;105:685–96.
[21] Suganthi KS, Rajan KS. Temperature induced changes in ZnO–water nanofluid:
Zeta potential, size distribution and viscosity profiles. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2012;
55(25):7969–80.
[22] Rohini Priya K, Suganthi KS, Rajan KS. Transport properties of ultra-low
concentration CuO–water nanofluids containing non-spherical nanoparticles. Int J
Heat Mass Transf 2012;55(17):4734–43.
[23] Mahbubul IM, et al. Stability, thermophysical properties and performance
assessment of alumina–water nanofluid with emphasis on ultrasonication and
storage period. Powder Technol 2019;345:668–75.
[24] Bin-Abdun NA, et al. Heat transfer improvement in simulated small battery
compartment using metal oxide (CuO)/deionized water nanofluid. Heat Mass
Transf 2020;56(2):399–406.
[25] Warjri M, Narayan J. Synthesis, Characterization and Physicochemical Properties
of Cupric Oxide Nanoparticles and their Nanofluids. Mater Today: Proc 2019;18:
1176–84.
[26] Afzal A, Khan S, Saleel AC. Role of ultrasonication duration and surfactant on
characteristics of ZnO and CuO nanofluids. Mater Res Express 2019;6:p. 1150d8.
[27] Moghaddari M, et al. Thermal conductivity and structuring of multiwalled carbon
nanotubes based nanofluids. J Mol Liq 2020;307:112977.
[28] Asadi A, et al. An experimental investigation on the effects of ultrasonication time
on stability and thermal conductivity of MWCNT-water nanofluid: Finding the
optimum ultrasonication time. Ultrason Sonochem 2019;58:104639.
[29] Chen W, Zou C, Li X. Application of large-scale prepared MWCNTs nanofluids in
solar energy system as volumetric solar absorber. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2019;
200.
[30] Said Z. Thermophysical and optical properties of SWCNTs nanofluids. Int Commun
Heat Mass Transfer 2016;78:207–13.
[31] Teng T-P, et al. Evaluating Stability of Aqueous Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube
Nanofluids by Using Different Stabilizers. Journal of Nanomaterials 2014;2014.
[32] Bellos E, et al. Thermal enhancement of solar parabolic trough collectors by using
nanofluids and converging-diverging absorber tube. Renewable Energy 2016;94:
213–22.
[33] Coccia G, et al. Adoption of nanofluids in low-enthalpy parabolic trough solar
collectors: Numerical simulation of the yearly yield. Energy Convers Manage 2016;
118:306–19.
[34] Mwesigye A, Huan Z, Meyer JP. Thermodynamic optimisation of the performance
of a parabolic trough receiver using synthetic oil–Al2O3 nanofluid. Appl Energy
2015;156:398–412.
17
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 54 (2022) 102786
[35] Kaloudis E, Papanicolaou E, Belessiotis V. Numerical simulations of a parabolic
trough solar collector with nanofluid using a two-phase model. Renewable Energy
2016;97:218–29.
[36] Ghasemi SE, Ranjbar AA. Thermal performance analysis of solar parabolic trough
collector using nanofluid as working fluid: A CFD modelling study. J Mol Liq 2016;
222:159–66.
[37] Sokhansefat T, Kasaeian AB, Kowsary F. Heat transfer enhancement in parabolic
trough collector tube using Al2O3/synthetic oil nanofluid. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2014;33:636–44.
[38] Sokhansefat T, Kasaeian A. Numerical Study of Heat Transfer Enhancement by
using Al2O3/Synthetic Oil Nanofluid in a Parabolic Trough Collector Tube, in
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 2012: Rome, Italy.
[39] Menbari A, Alemrajabi AA, Rezaei A. Heat transfer analysis and the effect of CuO/
Water nanofluid on direct absorption concentrating solar collector. Appl Therm
Eng 2016;104:176–83.
[40] Menbari A, Alemrajabi AA, Rezaei A. Experimental investigation of thermal
performance for direct absorption solar parabolic trough collector (DASPTC) based
on binary nanofluids. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2017;80:218–27.
[41] Akhtar F, et al. Experimental investigation of solar compound parabolic collector
using Al2O3/H2O nanofluid in a subtropical climate. Thermal Science 2021;25(5):
3453–65.
[42] Korres D, Bellos ET. Christos Investigation of a nanofluid-based compound parabolic
trough solar collector under laminar flow conditions. Appl Therm Eng 2019;149:
366–76.
[43] Sadeghiazad MM, Yahou S. Numerical investigation on effect of nano-fluid on
compound parabolic solar collector performance Part II: type and volume fraction
of nano particle. Progress in Solar Energy and Engineering Systems 2018;2(1):1–4.
[44] Xie H, Yu W, Chen W. MgO nanofluids: Higher thermal conductivity and lower
viscosity among ethylene glycol-based nanofluids containing oxide nanoparticles.
Journal of Experimental Nanoscience - J EXP NANOSCI 2010;5:463–72.
[45] Nanomaterials, U.R. Aluminum Oxide Nanopowder. 2021 [cited 2021; Available
from: http://www.us-nano.com/inc/sdetail/209.
[46] Das P, et al. Experimental investigation of thermophysical properties of Al 2 O 3
–water nanofluid: Role of surfactants. J Mol Liq 2017;237.
[47] Ali A, et al. Dynamic viscosity of Titania nanotubes dispersions in ethylene glycol/
water-based nanofluids: Experimental evaluation and predictions from empirical
correlation and artificial neural network. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2020;
118:104882.
[48] Khairul MA, et al. Effects of surfactant on stability and thermo-physical properties
of metal oxide nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2016;98:778–87.
[49] Yu W, Choi SUS. The Role of Interfacial Layers in the Enhanced Thermal
Conductivity of Nanofluids: A Renovated Maxwell Model. J Nanopart Res 2003;5
(1):167–71.
[50] 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):084314.
[51] Esfe M, et al. Thermal conductivity of Al2O3/water nanofluids. J Therm Anal
Calorim 2014;117:675–81.
[52] Kasaeian AB. Convection Heat Transfer Modeling of Ag Nanofluid Using Different
Viscosity Theories. IIUM. Engineering Journal 2012;13(1).
[53] Bellos E, et al. Design, simulation and optimization of a compound parabolic
collector. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess 2016;16:53–63.
[54] Daabo AM, Mahmoud S, Al-Dadah RK. The optical efficiency of three different
geometries of a small scale cavity receiver for concentrated solar applications. Appl
Energy 2016;179:1081–96.
[55] Rehan M, et al. Experimental performance analysis of low concentration ratio solar
parabolic trough collectors with nanofluids in winter conditions. Renewable
Energy 2017;118:742.
[56] Pastoriza-Gallego MJ, et al. Thermal conductivity and viscosity measurements of
ethylene glycol-based Al2O3 nanofluids. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011;6(1):221.
[57] Żyła G. Viscosity and thermal conductivity of MgO–EG nanofluids. J Therm Anal
Calorim 2017;129(1):171–80.