Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-020-03020-7

REVIEW

Metal oxide nanofluids in electronic cooling: a review

D. S. Saidina1 · M. Z. Abdullah2 · M. Hussin3

Received: 23 August 2019 / Accepted: 30 January 2020 / Published online: 11 February 2020
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Loop heat pipe (LHP) has gained significant interest, particularly in the field of cooling electronics, and has been considered
as an efficient heat transfer device in today’s electronic technologies. LHP is preferred over conventional heat pipes (HP)
due to the high efficiency, high heat flux capability, ability to transfer energy over long distances and ability to operate over
a range of environments. Brief comparisons between HP and LHP for electronic cooling are discussed. For the past 10 years,
numerous studies have reported on the synthesis of nanofluids used in LHP for cooling electronics. Nanofluids have been
widely used in electronic applications due to their superior heat transfer and thermal properties. The nanofluid fabrication,
stability and surfactants are reviewed. Recent works on metal oxide nanofluids and properties that influence the thermophysi-
cal properties of nanofluids, such as thermal conductivity, viscosity and surface tension, are also reported. Another intention
behind this review is to explain the challenges of metal oxide nanofluids in electronics cooling.

1 Introduction microprocessor reduced, electric power which they absorb

The emerging demand for high processing power electronic
devices has increased development in semiconductor and
another mini-scale and micro-scale electronic technologies.
The development trend has shifted towards miniaturiza-
tion and the need to be fitted into handy electronic gadgets
such as smartphones and watches. This miniaturization has
changed how people live and act in the world as well as
improving the speed of solving complex problems. Indeed,
these technologies come in handy in solving our daily tasks,
but they possess challenges that researchers spend decades
to solve. Due to this miniaturization trend in electronic
devices, the main challenge is thermal management. This
is because their performance is affected by temperature and
desirable performance could be decreased by thermal stress.
Even though size of electronic component for example
* M. Hussin
hussinm@usm.my
1
School of Materials and Mineral Resources Engineering,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus,
14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
2
School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal,
Penang, Malaysia
3
School of Aerospace Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang,
Malaysia
increases according to their temperature [1].
Continuous miniaturization has led to increase power
density in a small area, which means the processor heats
up faster than the heat can be dissipated to the surround-
ings. The two main technical challenges are inadequate heat
removal of ever-increasing heat flux and highly non-uniform
heat dissipation [2]. These two challenges dictate the capa-
bility of the processors as well as the health and quality of
the electronic devices. According to the previous work [3],
ordinary cooling methods and common coolant do not meet
the cooling requirements for high heat producing electronic
chips.
Studies showed that overheating causes material degra-
dation at the micro-level and the material can be further
deteriorated by the presence of cracks, expansion and other
structural deformation. At the macro-level, overheating
not only causes system failure but also becomes a health
and safety issue for users as well as causing the loss of the
entire assembly for the electronics industry [4]. If heat is not
removed at a rate equal to or greater than the heat genera-
tion rate, the components’ and device’s internal temperature
will keep increasing, which significantly reduces reliability
and performance, potentially failing the device. According
to a device reliability formula reported by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Defence, the failure factor is the relative failure rate
at any temperature over the failure rate at any temperature
predicted that the failure rate increases exponentially with

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
4382
increasing device temperature, as shown in Fig. 1 [5]. The
figure shows that after 75 °C, the failure rate increases expo-
nentially. More and more electronic gadgets have a system
installed that will keep track of the gadgets’ internal tem-
perature. When the gadget reaches a certain temperature, for
example 60 °C, the gadget will initiate a self-forced blackout
to reduce the risk of failure.
Here are some conventional cooling methods and their
classifications based on the heat transfer mechanism and
cooling effectiveness [6, 7].
(a) Radiation and free convection
(b) Forced air-cooling
(c) Forced liquid cooling (forced convection)
(d) Liquid evaporation
A study by Scott [8] compared the temperature of heat
transfer surfaces with the ambient temperature. A maximum
temperature reduction of 80 °C was estimated using these
four traditional methods and the results are summarized in
Fig. 2. The findings showed liquid evaporation is the best
technique since more heat is removed from the surface using
state changes from liquid to vapour. Forced liquid cooling
places second and forced convection by air places third [8].
Due to low cost and safety characteristics, forced air-cooling
has been widely used even though the heat removal capabil-
ity is relatively low.
Evaporative cooling is mostly applied to extreme tem-
perature conditions, such as in space where the gap between
maximum and minimum temperature is huge, or for indus-
tries that require a stable temperature environment, such
as a semiconductor manufacturing factory. An evaporative
cooling system using an ejector is a viable cost alternative
to a traditional cooling system. Ejectors are simple devices
governed by Bernoulli’s principle where a flow of air, water
Fig. 1  Graph of failure factor against device temperature [3]
13
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
Fig. 2  Comparisons of heat transfer effectiveness of conventional
methods [6]
­(H2O) or steam produces a pressure drop that can be used
to suck up vapour from the primary refrigerant; evaporation
then occurs, cooling it. Cooling occurs by removing the sen-
sible heat of the fluid by evaporation [9]. Hence, due to their
complexity and extreme conditions, they are quite difficult
to apply to electronic cooling applications.
Forced convection using liquid potentially becomes the
optimum method to remove heat from electronics with better
heat transfer effectiveness than forced convection using air
and relatively simpler than evaporative cooling. The overall
heat transfer coefficient is a key parameter to evaluate the
effectiveness of different fluids for liquid forced convection.
Murshed and Castro [6] presented typical ranges for the heat
transfer coefficient of commonly used coolants, such as air,
and coolants in different cooling modes and the results are
summarized in Table 1.
The use of air and H ­ 2O as a coolant is no longer able to
meet the demands of modern electronic devices or systems
due to their poor thermal properties, which introduce a limi-
tation to the cooling performance. To solve this problem,
newly emerging coolants, such as nanofluids, have been
introduced. Nanofluids are produced by suspending nano-
particles in a base fluid to enhance the thermal conductivity
and heat transfer coefficient of the base fluid. Nanofluids that
exhibit superior thermal properties are a potential solution
Table 1  Range of heat transfer coefficient of air and ­H2O [4]
Cooling modes Heat transfer coef- Heat transfer
ficient of air coefficient of
(Wm−2 k−1) ­H2O
(Wm−2 k−1)
Free convection 5–100 100–1200
Forced convection (moder- 10–350 500–3000
ate flow speed)
Boiling – 3000–100,000
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398 4383

to the issue of overheating electronic devices. Since metals

and metal oxides have greater thermal conductivities than
organic materials and heat transfer fluids, as illustrated in
Fig. 3, dispersing metal and metal oxide nanoparticles in a
fluid is expected to enhance the thermal conductivity of the
base fluid [10, 11].
The advantages of metal oxides compared to metal nano-
particles include resistance to oxidation and chemical stabil-
ity. Furthermore certain metal oxides have a lower density
than their respective metals, which leads to less sedimenta-
tion when used for nanofluid formulation. Therefore, metal
oxides have been widely used for nanofluids formulation
despite their lower thermal conductivity compared to metals
[12, 13]. This idea is a hot topic for investigations since it is a
potential solution to meet thermal control requirements [14]. Fig. 4  The number of published papers for nanofluids and loop heat
Figure 4 shows the number of papers published in the field pipe, and nanofluids and metal oxide 2011–2020 from Scopus by
searching for the topic “nanofluids and loop heat pipe” and “nanoflu-
of nanofluids + loop heat pipe (LHP) and nanofluids + metal ids and metal oxide” (data acquired on January 2020)
oxide. Note that the statistics were taken from Scopus. The
number of published papers for nanofluids + LHP slightly
increased from 2 articles in 2011 to 9 articles in 2019 and carbon-based nanoparticles in nanofluids were reviewed in
for nanofluids + metal oxide, a sharp increase can be seen previous works [13]. This review article focused on metal
from about 12 articles in 2011 to 80 articles in 2019. The oxide and the application for electronic cooling, specifi-
data indicate that the use of metal oxides in nanofluids has cally for heat pipe and loop heat pipe. Besides, some inter-
great potential for heat transfer fluids [13]. Meanwhile Fig. 5 esting aspects about the factors that influence thermophys-
represents the number of papers published for various metal ical properties of metal oxide nanofluids are introduced.
oxide nanofluids using statistics taken from Scopus. Alu-
mina ­(Al2O3) nanofluids have a sharp increase of 295%
from 2015 to 2019. ­Al2O3 has been widely used by many
researchers in their experimental works for heat transfer flu- 2 Heat transfer devices
ids compared to other metal oxides [15]. Based on the high-
lighted advantages of the metal oxides and the number of the Based on the effectiveness of the material or process
publications, it shows that metal oxides are categorized as applied in cooling electronics, emerging cooling meth-
preferred nanoparticles in the fluid formulation. ods can be categorized into two types: heat pipe (HP) and
Many efforts have been directed towards applica- loop heat pipe (LHP). The mechanism, pros and cons, and
tions of nanofluids in various types of electronic cooling examples of each type are further discussed in the follow-
devices. Use of metal, metal oxide, gold, diamond, and ing sub-section.

Fig. 3  Comparison of thermal conductivity of various materials for Fig. 5  The number of published papers of various metal oxide nano-
nanofluids [9] fluids 2015–2019 from Scopus (data acquired on August 2019)

13
4384
2.1 Heat pipe
HP is deemed to be one of the most effective methods
to transfer heat passively and it is structured with a very
high thermal conductivity that enables heat transportation
while maintaining almost uniform temperature distribu-
tion along its heated and cooled sections. Generally, HP
has been designed to transport heat over relatively long
distances without using complicated mechanical aids and
there are no moving parts. The physics behind an HP is
using phase-change processes and vapour diffusion, where
the main structure of a heat pipe consists of an evacuated
tube partially filled with a working fluid ­( H 2O or other
coolants) that exists in both liquid and vapour phase [16].
Figure 6a shows a simplified model of an HP taken from a
nuclear seawater desalination process. The model contains
Fig. 6  a The schematic of HP,
and the structure of b thermos-
yphons and c wicked HP [15]
13
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
three main compartments, which are evaporator, transport
section and condenser [17].
From Fig. 6a, heat (Q) was input into the evaporator and
transferred to the working fluid. The working fluid absorbs
heat from its surroundings and experiences a phase change
from liquid to vapour. During this physical phase change,
specific heat capacity and specific latent heat of the work-
ing liquid becomes a major consideration to determine how
much heat will be carried away. After vaporization, the
vapour is transported to the condenser along an insulated
section where almost no heat is lost during the transporta-
tion process. At the condenser, the vapour will experience
another phase change from vapour to liquid. The condensa-
tion process occurs when there is a temperature difference
between the HP and the external surroundings where the
external temperature is lower than the vapour temperature
inside the heat pipe. During the condensation process, latent
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
heat is released, and the working fluid is transported back
to the evaporator. This working cycle is not applicable for
some occasions, such as when the vapour temperature is the
same as the external temperature or the when the external
temperature is higher than the vapour temperature inside
the heat tube. Another example based on the HP concept is
thermosyphons and wicked HPs, as illustrated in Fig. 6b, c.
2.2 Loop heat pipe
HP and LHP both use the concepts of evaporation, transpor-
tation and condensation, but the design and mechanisms are
slightly different. LHP is known for its high transfer capa-
bilities, flexible installation and absence of moving parts
[18, 19]. LHP is an effective two-phase heat transfer device
in which the vapour and liquid flow in different channels,
which makes the evaporator and condenser two entities. The
evaporators can be classified into two types, cylindrical and
flat [20, 21].
One of the distinct differences between LHP and HP is
the presence of the compensation chamber. The compensa-
tion chamber serves as a reservoir that is temporarily filled
with working liquid and saturated vapour, which allows
the volumetric proportion to change according to the heat
input. It helps to maintain and regulate the continuous flow
Fig. 7  The schematic of LHP with a flat evaporator [19]
Fig. 8  a The schematic and b general view of CPU coolers with an LHP [19]
4385
of working liquid in the LHP. As the heat input increases,
the mass flow rate is increased and causes more liquid
and vapour to be pushed into the compensation chamber.
When the condenser is saturated, the displaced liquid will
be displaced fully into the compensation chamber to create
a constant conductance [21]. A schematic of an LHP with
a flat evaporator is presented in Fig. 7.
From another perspective, LHP is more suitable to per-
form electronic cooling than HP due to several consid-
erations. HP often exists in a fixed single unit structure
where the modification can be difficult. Not only that,
HPs are sensitive to changes of orientation under gravi-
tational conditions where the HP must be placed at an
upright position to function. When the working liquid
is heated, the liquid becomes hot vapour, which is less
dense and rises to the condenser. If the evaporation zone
is above the condensation zone, there will be an abrupt
decrease in heat transfer capacity [16]. On the other hand,
LHP shows no effects due to orientation since the evapo-
rator and condenser are separated. Besides attaining the
heat transfer objective, LHP allows a variety of different
design embodiments to suit the desired case study, such
as installing valves and flowmeters in between the evapo-
rator and condenser. Hence, LHP is a better option for
electronics cooling where different kinds of equipment
can be installed depending on the scope of the study. The
idea of using LHP in electronics cooling dates to the end
of the seventies, when the heat dissipated by computers
became a major concern for engineers. Researchers cre-
ated CPU coolers that used the LHP concept to cool down
the CPU. The evaporators were resized to suit the applica-
tion requirements. For electronics cooling, an ­H2O block
interface (Fig. 8) can be used to replace the evaporator
since it allows a nanofluid to flow in and out to take away
heat through forced convection.
13
4386
3 Conventional coolants
Nanofluids are known as the new solution to solve the
demand for higher heat removal rates for electronics.
Before the emergence of nanofluids, different aqueous
and non-aqueous coolants were introduced and used, these
coolants are known as traditional coolants. The effective-
ness of a traditional coolant is dependent on the type of
coolant and the heat transfer method. ­H2O is a widely used
traditional coolant since H­ 2O gives the highest heat trans-
fer coefficient in term of boiling and condensation. Since
human beings use electronics casually, the coolant used
must satisfy certain requirements, such as being non-flam-
mable, non-toxic, and inexpensive, as well as exhibiting
excellent thermophysical properties such as high thermal
conductivity, specific heat and heat transfer coefficient.
Additionally, the coolant must not exert too much strain on
the mechanical components of the cooling system; hence,
the viscosity of the coolant must be low, and the cooling
fluid must be non-corrosive [22].
In Fig. 9, ­H2O and liquid metals both are good at their
heat transfer capabilities and ­H2O vapour is placed at the
top due to its extremely high specific latent heat. The
advantage of liquid metal is its much lower coefficient of
thermal expansion compared to water and the fact that
freezing introduces fewer problems. On the other hand,
­H2O sometimes cannot be used for closed-loop systems
due to its relatively high freezing point and the expansive
characteristics upon freezing. Developments to extend
the use in cold environments to − 40 °C are ongoing. To
overcome this problem, another two types of conventional
coolant have been introduced which are called dielectric
and non-dielectric fluids.
Fig. 9  Range of overall heat transfer coefficients for different fluids
and cooling method [20]
13
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
3.1 Dielectric fluids
A dielectric fluid is a dielectric material in a liquid state.
A dielectric material is an electrical insulator that can be
polarized by applying an electric field. It serves to prevent
or rapidly quench electric charges. This type of fluid is
used for high voltage applications, such as transformers,
capacitors and switchgear, due to its electrical insulating
characteristics. Examples of dielectric fluids are Coolanol
25R, silicon oil and fluorinated compounds.
3.2 Non‑dielectric fluids
This type of cooling fluid has been widely used as anti-
freeze in automotive engine cooling to deal with extreme
temperatures. One of the best examples of non-dielectric
fluids is ethylene glycol (EG). EG is colourless, odour-
less and is completely miscible with ­H 2O. EG exhibits
low corrosivity but it is classified as toxic since the long-
term ingestion of EG can be fatal. EG is used to increase
the boiling point and decrease the freezing point of the
radiator fluid. Other than EG, there is propylene glycol
(PG) which exhibits a similar function to EG but is non-
toxic. The only drawback of PG is its higher viscosity and
greater manufacturing cost. In short, non-dielectric cool-
ants are mostly H­ 2O-based, which allows them to exhibit
a very high specific heat and thermal conductivity [23].
4 Nanofluids
Nanoparticles (NPs) are a wide class of materials that
include particulate substances that have at least one dimen-
sion less than 100 nm [24]. A particle that has more than
one dimension less than 100 nm is considered a nanopar-
ticle. Throughout years of research, different types of NPs
have been produced and discovered, including A ­ l2O3, sili-
con oxide (­ SiO2), copper oxide (CuO), magnesium oxide
(MgO), zinc oxide (ZnO), sodium oxide (NaO), iron (III)
oxide ­(Fe2O3), iron (II, III) oxide (­ Fe3O4), etc. They have
a total of six classifications, carbon-based, metals, ceram-
ics, semiconductors, polymerics and liquid-based [25].
However, in electronic cooling purposes, only metal or
metal oxide NPs were used since these NPs showed rela-
tively higher thermal properties compared to other classes.
Hence, the idea of mixing NPs with the coolant gave birth
to nanofluids. A nanofluid is an advanced functional fluid
that is designed by adding nanosized solid particles in a
low to moderate volume fraction to the base fluid, such as
­H2O and coolants; nanoparticles remain suspended in the
base fluid.
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
4.1 Preparation of nanofluids
The thermophysical properties of nanofluids become the
main scope of the study when dealing with heat transfer
applications. Nanofluids can be obtained by dispersing
NPs into the base fluids. A stable and durable synthesized
nanofluid is important in order to sustain the thermophysi-
cal properties. Generally, researchers applied two different
methods to produce nanofluids, the single-step (one-step)
and two-step methods.
The one-step method is a simultaneous synthesis method
where NPs production and dispersion in the base fluid hap-
pen together. Hence, no NPs transportation and storage are
required and the agglomeration of NPs in the base fluid is
minimized. However, this process is suitable for low vapour
pressure base fluids and it is relatively higher production
cost [26]. Another disadvantage of this method is that it
works in batch mode and has limited control over several
important parameters such as particle size. Shenoy and
Shetty [27] synthesized cuprous oxide nanofluids using a
single-step chemical reduction method in the presence of
polyvinyl-pyrrolidone (PVP) which is acted as a stabilizing
agent. Kong et al. [28] used a single-step method to prepare
nanofluids by vapour deposition, as shown in Fig. 10a.
For two-step methods, NPs are produced separately by
physical or chemical processes. NPs are then dispersed into
a base fluid using magnetic stirring, homogenizing or ultra-
sonic agitation, as shown in Fig. 10b [29–33]. Magnetic
stirring is the most basic method applied to break down the
NPs clusters. The rotation of magnetic beads due to external
magnetic field stirred the particle fluid mixture. The stir-
ring speeds need to be controlled as high-speed stirring may
cause bubble formation and may affect the mass fraction
during experimentation. Lui et al. [34] reported that, they
prepared water-based A ­ l2O3 and CuO nanofluids using mag-
netic stirrer to disperse the NPs. They reduced the stirring
speed from 1200 to 800 rpm to avoid bubble formation in
the nanofluids. There are other methods which are powerful
and effective compared to magnetic stirrers. These methods
Fig. 10  a Single-step and b two-step methods to prepare nanofluids [22, 26]
4387
are ultrasonication processors, sonicators and homoginizers
[35].
Ultrasonication baths or probes are commonly and widely
accepted physical method to disperse NPs in basefluids.
Probe ultrasonication is the most widely employed stabili-
zation method compared to ultrasonication bath. Research-
ers applied probe ultrasonication at different power and
frequency levels for different time interval. For example,
Mahbubul et al. [36] studied the effect of ultrasonication
time on the stability of water-based A ­ l2O3 nanofluids. It is
reported that, better colloidal dispersion and lower viscosity
nanofluids were observed by increasing of the ultrasonica-
tion time. Another method applied to break clusters of NPs
is called as high shear homogenizer. Hwang et al. [35] rec-
ommended that the high-pressure homogenizer is an effec-
tive tool to break down the agglomeration of NPs. This is
based on their research that compared different dispersion
methods such as stirrer, ultrasonic bath, ultrasonic disrup-
tor and high-pressure homogenizer to stabilize nanofluid
samples.
In the process of producing a two-step method nanofluid,
a surfactant can be added to improve the stability of nano-
fluid and minimize agglomeration. Lee et al. [37] fabricated
­Al2O3 and CuO nanofluids using a two-step method, soni-
cation from NPs made by the sol–gel method. This method
has been widely used for a long time and this technique is
considered cheaper because NPs synthesis techniques are
already scaled up to industrial production levels [26].
4.2 Nanofluid stability
Nanofluid stability plays an important role in the real-world
application of nanofluids. The maintenance of colloidal sta-
bility is the major challenge for nanofluid [13]. Nanofluid
stability deals with the aggregation of NPs in nanofluid. This
section provides some common techniques to characterize
the stability of nanofluids, including spectral analysis, zeta
potential analysis and electron microscopy. The details of
these techniques are described in the following subsections.
13
4388 Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398

4.2.1 Spectral analysis [41]. The basic concept of 𝜁 -potential is presented in Fig. 12,
an electric charge in the diffuse layer is in magnitude with
Stability measurement via UV–Vis spectrophotometer is one the net surface charge but opposite in polarity, which means
of the most popular analytical techniques because it is very the complete arrangement is electrically neutral.
versatile and able to examine the behaviour of nanofluids The dispersion is considered to be stable at higher mag-
in all kinds of base fluids. UV–Vis measurement is pos- nitude zeta potentials (|𝜁 |) due to electrostatic repulsion
sible for nanofluids that have extinction bands between 190 between particles. According to Vandsburger [42], nano-
and 1100 nm [29]. The spectrophotometers send UV–Vis fluids show excellent stability when the 𝜁 -potential is more
light through a sample and then, the intensity of the beam than 60 mV and physically stable at more than 30 mV.
is measured to determine the absorbance. According to Zhu Nanofluids have low stability when 𝜁 -potential is lower
et al. [38], the absorption strength is directly related to the
number of suspended nanoparticles because higher absorp-
tion strength results from stable nanofluids.
Figure 11 shows the UV–Vis absorption spectra of (a)
CuO/H2O nanofluids and (b) ­TiO2/H2O nanofluids. From
Fig. 11a, we can observe the light absorption peak of CuO
nanofluid at 268 nm. The light absorption strength decreased
with increasing analysis duration, indicating the nanofluid
stability was reduced [39]. For ­TiO2 nanofluid (Fig. 11b),
the light absorption peak of ­TiO2 nanofluid can be observed
at 400 nm [40].

4.2.2 Zeta potential analysis

According to electrophoresis theory, the zeta, 𝜁 potential is

the potential difference between the dispersion medium and
the stationary layer of base fluids attached to the particles
[29]. 𝜁 -potential reflects the colloid behaviour and the dis-
persion stability of the particles, which is affected by several
factors including temperature, solvent, ionic strength and pH Fig. 12  The basic concept of 𝜁 -potential [27]

Fig. 11  UV–Vis absorption spectra of a CuO/H2O nanofluids and b ­TiO2/H2O nanofluids [34, 35]

13
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
than 20 mV. They are very unstable below 5 mV and the
nanoparticles are ready to agglomerate.
To date, various studies on 𝜁 -potential analysis have
been carried out to analyse the stability of various nanoflu-
ids. Chang et al. [39] fabricated CuO/H2O nanofluids and
the 𝜁 -potentials of nanofluids at different pH values were
measured and shown in Fig. 13a. As can be observed from
the figure, the 𝜁 -potential of CuO/H2O nanofluids were
higher under acidic conditions than under alkaline condi-
tions, showing that the nanofluids have good suspension
when the pH value decreased. Chang et al. [40] investi-
gated the stability of ­TiO2/H2O nanofluids under various
pH values, as shown in Fig. 13b. The 𝜁 -potential of the
prepared nanofluids at pH 7.5 reached − 35 mV, showing
that the nanofluids already possessed electrostatic stabil-
ity properties even before using the acidic and alkaline
solutions to adjust the solution pH. The strong repulsive
force among charged particles when the 𝜁 -potential value
is higher than 30 mV and lower than − 30 mV reduces
the possibility of the NPs aggregating, therefore, forming
a more stable suspension. Zhu et al. [38] reported that
the addition of sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS)
as a surfactant in ­A l 2O 3/H 2O nanofluids improved the
nanofluids’ stability since the 𝜁 -potential values were less
than − 30 mV at a pH value above 2. The electrostatic
repulsion force between particles becomes sufficient to
prevent attraction and collisions between particles caused
by Brownian motion, therefore reducing the probability of
particle coagulation and settling.
Fig. 13  𝜁−potential of a CuO/H2O nanofluids and b ­TiO2/H2O nanofluids under various pH values [34, 35]
4389
4.2.3 Electron microscopy
Electron microscopy using a scanning electron microscope
(SEM) or high-resolution transmission electron microscope
(HRTEM) is also an important method to observe and visu-
alize particle aggregation and clustering. Nanofluids can be
considered well dispersed and stable when the particles are
distributed uniformly; meanwhile, for unstable nanofluids,
the NPs are often clustered or aggregated.
4.3 Surfactant
A surfactant is often added into nanofluids to act as a link
between nanoparticles and host fluids and improve the nano-
fluid’s stability [43, 44]. Hydrophilic nanoparticles, such as
metal oxides, can be easily dispersed in polar base fluids
such as water. However, mixing hydrophilic nanoparticles
in non-polar base fluids or hydrophobic nanoparticles in
polar base fluids makes it difficult to achieve good stability
nanofluids. Due to that, surfactants including ionic, non-
ionic, cationic and amphoteric properties have been widely
explored for stabilized nanofluids, as shown in Fig. 14 [29].
Ionic surfactants refer to the surface active agents which
containing cations or anions in their formulations. The head
of the surfactant molecule carries a net electrical charge
which can be either a positive charge or a negative charge.
If the charge is positive, it is called as cationic surfactant;
meanwhile, it is called as anionic surfactant if the charge is
negative. On the other hand, non-ionic surfactants are the
13
4390
Fig. 14  Various types of surfactants for nanofluids stabilization
surface active agents that have no net electrical charge in
their formulations and amphoteric surfactants carry a posi-
tive and a negative charges.
Khairul et al. [45] investigated the influence of ionic
surfactant using SDBS on the stability of A ­ l2O3 and CuO
nanofluids. Their findings stated that an optimum amount of
SDBS in the nanofluids improved the stability of both nano-
fluids. The same findings were reported by Huang et al. [46].
Xia et al. [47] studied the effect of using SDS and PVP as
stabilizers for ­Al2O3/H2O nanofluids and discovered that the
surfactants improved the nanofluids’ stability. Other metal
oxide nanofluids, including ­TiO2, were stabilized using
acrylic acid [48]. However, as reported by Yu et al. [43],
Wang et al. [49] and Assael et al. [50], using a surfactant
may interrupt the thermal conductivity enhancement and
increase thermal resistance at the particle–fluid interface.
Additionally, using a surfactant might influence the purity of
the heat transfer medium or fluid flow [51, 52] and may alter
the nanofluids’ properties at high temperatures [10, 53–56].
5 Research on metal oxide nanofluids
Nanofluids applications have been assimilated into various
industries such as coolants in automobile transmissions,
electronics cooling, drilling fluids, solar H
­ 2O heating and
radiators due to their superior thermal conductivity. Differ-
ent combinations of base fluid and NP will yield different
results, hence the factors behind the changes worth studying.
Many published articles are focused on determining prop-
erties of nanofluids especially modelling and measuring
thermal conductivity of nanofluids and heat transfer coef-
ficient [52]. Enhancement in both convective heat transfer
13
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
coefficient and thermal conductivity increased with increas-
ing particle volume fraction. For example 0.6% A ­ l2O3 and
1.8% ­Al2O3 in water exhibit heat transfer coefficients of
177.8% and 187.6% W/m2K under slug flow with constant
wall temperature boundary condition, respectively.
Gunnasegaran et al. [57] investigated the heat transfer
characteristics of using S­ iO2/H2O nanofluid in an LHP as
a working medium for heat input range between 20 and
100 W. The LHP consists of an H ­ 2O tank with pump, a flat
evaporator, a condenser installed with two pieces of fans,
two transportation lines (vapour and liquid lines), copper
pipe sections for attaching the thermocouples and a power
supply, as shown in Fig. 15a. The findings showed an aver-
age 28–44% decrease in the total thermal resistance of
LHP using S ­ iO2/H2O nanofluid compared with pure H ­ 2O
(Fig. 15b). This indicates that the suspended NPs in a fluid
flow can increase the thermal conductivity of fluids hence
resulted in the reduction of total thermal resistance of the
LHP with ­SiO2–H2O nanofluid.
Harun et al. [58] reported the thermal performance of
using various nanofluids in LHP, a schematic diagram of
the experimental setup of LHP is shown in Fig. 16a. The
results showed that as the mass concentration of the nano-
fluids increased, the thermal resistance for an A­ l2O3/H2O
nanofluid decreased but the opposite occurred for a S ­ iO2/
H2O nanofluid (Fig. 16b). Results of total thermal resist-
ance using S­ iO2 increased as the mass concentration of NPs
increased from 0.5 to 3.0%. This subsequently decreased
the thermal performance; however, the thermal resistance
of ­SiO2/H2O nanofluid is still better than pure H­ 2O. Dia-
mond nanofluid had the best thermal performance as it
had the highest thermal conductivity and enhanced heat
transfer abilities of LHP. This indicates that type of NPs
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
Fig. 15  a Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus and b total thermal resistance against applied heat load [53]
Fig. 16  a Schematic diagram of experimental setup of LHP and b thermal resistance of different nanofluids as a function of mass concentration
[54]
and concentration of NPs significantly influenced the ther-
mal resistance and thermal performance of the nanofluids.
The results are in accordance with the recent experimental
data on metal oxide nanofluids mainly for LHP (shown in
Table 2). Based on Table 2, majority of the experimental
results indicated that use of metal oxide NPs ­(SiO2, ­Al2O3,
CuO) in water decreased the total thermal resistance of the
nanofluids. Furthermore increased concentration of metal
oxide NP reduced thermal resistance and hence improved
convective heat transfer coefficient.
Many studies have reported that the thermophysical prop-
erties of nanofluids were influenced by the thermal conduc-
tivity, viscosity and surface tension of the nanofluids [59].
The thermal conductivity, viscosity and surface tension are
further discussed in the following sub-section.
4391
5.1 Thermal conductivity
Thermal conductivity plays a vital role in determining the
thermophysical properties of nanofluids. Based on litera-
ture studies, the thermal conductivity of nanofluids is mainly
affected by several factors, including volume fraction, parti-
cle size and temperature [15, 59, 60].
5.1.1 Effect of volume fraction and particle size
As reported by Ganvir et al. [59], the addition of small
amounts of metal oxides to base fluids such as H ­ 2O and
smaller particles has increased the thermal conductivities
of the nanofluids. Many researchers found that the thermal
13
4392 Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398

Table 2  Summary of recent experimental works in using metal oxide nanofluids for electronic cooling system
Authors Nanofluids Volume fraction (%) Heat input (W) Findings

Gunnasegaran et al. [57] SiO2/H2O 3 20–100 Average decrease of 28%-44% in total thermal resistance of
LHP as compared with pure ­H2O
Gunnasegaran et al. [100] Al2O3/H2O 0–3 40 Average decrease of 9%-16% in total thermal resistance of LHP
as compared with pure H ­ 2O
Putra et al. [101] Al2O3/H2O 5 10–30 Improved performance of LHP by using biomaterial as wick
with thermal resistance decrement of 56.3% as compared to
sintered powder wick
Moraveji et al. [102] Al2O3/H2O 0–3 N/A Nanofluid with 3% mass concentration had lower thermal resist-
ance than 1% due to the formation of vapour bubble at the
liquid–solid interface
Harun et al. [58] SiO2/H2O 0.5–3 40 Average decrease of 0.6% and 4.7% at 3% mass concentration
& ­Al2O3/ in total thermal resistance of LHP than pure ­H2O
H 2O
Stephen et al. [103] Al2O3/H2O 0.09–0.12 30–500 The CLHP was able to operate up to 500 W without the occur-
rence of dry out condition. The evaporator thermal resistance
is reduced 20.21% for 0.12% compared with distilled H ­ 2O.
The convective heat transfer coefficient at the evaporator and
condenser improved with the % values of 23.7% and 30.8%
for 0.09% and 0.12%
Putra et al. [104] CuO/H2O 0.075 10 The evaporator thermal resistance of CuO/H2O nanofluid that
using biomaterials wick is reduced 17.3% compared with ­H2O
fluid
Wang et al. [105] Cu/H2O 1–2 25 The heat flux and the boiling temperature are non-monotonic
function of concentration of nanoparticle
Gunnasegaran et al. [106] SiO2/H2O 0–3 20–60 Average decrease of 23.4% at 0.5% compared to 22.2 at 3% in
total thermal resistance for 20–60 W

conductivity of nanofluids increased linearly with increased
volume fraction and reduced metal oxide particle size.
Chandrasekar et al. [61] illustrated the effect of ­Al2O3
volume fraction on the thermal conductivity of nanoflu-
ids. Their results show that the thermal conductivities of
nanofluids increased linearly with volume concentration
(0.33–3%). Suresh et al. [62] studied the thermal conductiv-
ity of ­Al2O3–Cu hybrid nanofluids as a function of volume
concentration (0.1–2%) and the results showed a 12.11%
enhancement in thermal conductivity for the hybrid nano-
fluids at 2% volume concentration. Duangthongsuk and
Wongwises [63] illustrated the effect of T ­ iO2 nanoparticle
loading and the findings showed an about 3–7% enhance-
ment in nanofluid thermal conductivity between 0.2 and
2% volume concentration. Javadi et al. [64] investigated the
effect of volume fractions of ­TiO2, ­Al2O3 and ­SiO2 on the
thermal conductivity of nanofluids and discovered that ther-
mal conductivity increased with increasing volume fractions
of metal oxides in base fluids. ­Al2O3 nanofluid achieved the
highest heat transfer coefficient at 0.2% volume concentra-
tion with a 30% improvement compared to ­SiO2 nanofluid.
Particle size represents the most significant difference in
thermal conductivity for nanofluids and micron-sized fluids.
According to Gupta et al. [15], NPs can be from various
sizes, ranging from 5 to 100 nm. Teng et al. [65] illustrated
the effect of particle size and volume concentration on the
thermal conductivity of ­Al2O3/H2O nanofluids produced
by the direct synthesis method. The TEM images of ­Al2O3
nanoparticles at various sizes are shown in Fig. 17a–c. The
findings indicated that the thermal conductivity increased
with small NP sizes of 20, 50 and 100 nm, respectively, and
a high-volume concentration between 0.5 and 2% at 30 °C,
as presented in Fig. 17d.
5.1.2 Effect of temperature
Nanofluid thermal conductivity is not only affected by the
volume fraction and particle size of metal oxides, but also
temperature, which plays a major role in increasing thermal
conductivity. Patel et al. [66] reported that the increase in
thermal conductivity of the nanofluids was directly propor-
tional to temperature. Duangthongsuk and Wongwises [67]
studied the effect of volume concentration and temperature
on the thermal conductivity of ­TiO2 nanofluids. The findings
showed that the thermal conductivity of nanofluids increased
with increasing volume concentrations (0.2–2%) and nano-
fluid temperatures.
Sundar et al. [68] illustrated the effect of particle volume
concentration and temperature on the thermal conductiv-
ity of ­Fe3O4 nanofluids. At 2% volume concentration, the

13
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398 4393

Fig. 17  TEM images of ­Al2O3 nanoparticles at various sizes; a 20 nm, b 50 nm and c 100 nm, and d the relationship between weight fraction
and thermal conductivity of ­Al2O3/H2O nanofluids at different particle sizes [60]

thermal conductivity improved 25–48% over the tempera-
ture range 20–60 °C. Vermahmoudi et al. [69] illustrated
the effect of temperature on the heat transfer coefficient and
­ e2O3 nanofluid at 0.65% volume con-
heat transfer rate of F
centration and inlet temperatures from 50 to 80 °C. Their
findings showed a 5% decrease in heat transfer coefficient
and a 116% increase in heat transfer rate as the inlet tem-
perature increased from 50 to 80 °C, as shown in Fig. 18.
Hussein et al. [70] reported a 39% to 56% improvement in
the heat transfer rate of ­SiO2 nanofluids at temperatures
from 60 to 80 °C. Additionally, Yuan et al. [71] explored the
effect of temperature and surfactant presence on the thermal
conductivity of ­Al2O3 nanofluids. They reported that ­Al2O3
nanofluids without surfactant had higher thermal conductiv-
ity with increasing temperature from 15 to 45 °C compared
to nanofluids with surfactant.
Thus, based on the literature, the thermal conductivity of
nanofluids shows dependence on the volume fraction, metal
oxide particle size, and nanofluid temperature.
5.2 Viscosity
Viscosity also plays an important role in determining the
thermophysical properties of nanofluids. The viscosity is
mainly affected by many factors including volume concen-
tration, particle size, shear rate and temperature [72–75].

13
4394
Fig. 18  a Overall heat transfer coefficient and b heat transfer rate of ­Fe2O3 nanofluids at 0.65% of volume concentration as a function of inlet
temperature [64]
Chandrasekar et al. [61] reported the viscosity of A ­ l 2O 3
nanofluids measured using a Brookfield cone and plate vis-
cometer, as shown in Fig. 19a. The improvement in viscosity
(Fig. 19b) was attributed to the particle volume concentra-
tion; a similar finding was observed by Sundar et al. [68].
According to Ghanbarpour et al. [76] and Sandesh
et al. [77], the viscosity of A­ l 2O 3 nanofluid increased
with increasing volume concentration and decreased
with increasing temperature. Nguyen et al. [78] reported
that the viscosity of nanofluids depended on the particle
volume concentration and temperature. The viscosity of
­A l 2O 3 nanofluids increased with particle loading from
1 to 9.4% and decreased as the temperature increased
from 22 to 75 °CC. A similar finding was observed by
Fig. 19  a Cone and plate assembly; 1-cone, 2-plate, and b viscosity of viscosity of A
[104]
13
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
Duangthongsuk and Wongwises [63], the viscosity of
­TiO2/H2O nanofluids increased as the particle concentra-
tions increased between 0.2 and 2% and decreased with
increasing nanofluid temperature from 15 to 35 °C.
Halelfadl et al. [79] stated that the viscosity of nanoflu-
ids is affected by increasing the particle volume concen-
tration and shear rate. Namburu et al. [80] investigated
the effect of ­SiO2 particle size from 20 to 100 nm on the
viscosity of the nanofluids. As observed, the viscosity was
higher for ­SiO2 nanofluids with a 20 nm particle size at
the same volume concentration compared to larger particle
sizes of 50 nm and 100 nm. This is attributed to the larger
total surface area of S
­ iO2 NPs at the smaller size. Smaller
particles interact well with the surrounding nanofluids due
to their greater surface area, thus increasing the viscosity.
­ l2O3/H2O nanofluid as a function of volume concentration
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
5.3 Surface tension
Surface tension has received less attention compared to
thermal conductivity and viscosity in the thermophysical
properties of nanofluids. However, surface tension is also
an important parameter in boiling point and two-phase heat
transfer phenomena [59]. Pantzali et al. [81, 82] illustrated
the effect of surfactants on the surface tension of nanofluids.
It was observed that the surface tensions of A ­ l2O3 and T
­ iO2
nanofluids measured using the pendant drop method were
higher than that of H ­ 2O without a surfactant addition, but
a significant reduction was observed when the surfactant
was added.
6 Challenges
Figure 20 summarizes the common challenges for nanoflu-
ids to be considered in engineering applications. Long-term
nanofluid stability is an important factor since it is directly
related to thermal conductivity, viscosity and surface ten-
sion, which decreases the efficiency of nanofluids to be
used in engineering applications [83–85]. The interaction
of nanomaterials with the liquid influences the dispersion
of nanoparticles, which affects the overall performance of
nanofluids. High nanoparticle-to-nanoparticle interactions
result in nanoparticle agglomeration which was influenced
by not only settlement and the clogging of microchannels
but also the decreasing of nanofluid thermal conductivity.
According to Yu and Xie [86], using surfactants or disper-
sants, functionalized nanoparticles and implementation
stability mechanisms during the fabrication of nanofluids
are commonly considered to improve nanofluid stability.
For stable nanofluids, the repulsive forces between parti-
cles must be dominant. Based on the types of repulsion, the
Fig. 20  Common challenges in nanofluids
4395
fundamental mechanisms that affect colloidal stability are
divided into two, steric repulsion and electrostatic (charge)
repulsion, shown in Fig. 21. For steric stabilization, poly-
mers are always involved in the suspension system, and they
will adsorb onto the particles’ surface, producing an addi-
tional steric repulsive force. For example, ZnO nanoparticles
modified by poly(methacrylic acid) have good compatibility
with polar solvents [87]. Nanofluids with low stability will
result in low-performance replicability for the nanofluids.
Another great challenge in applying nanofluids is the
increase in pumping power and pressure drop of nano-
fluids that is essential for high-quality applications [88].
The electronic cooling system has a forced flow nature. A
pump is required to force the nanofluid through the system.
Adding nanoparticles to a base fluid increases the viscos-
ity and therefore increases the power required to pump the
fluid through the system. More pumping power is required
to compensate for the pressure drop, which leads to poor
system efficiency. Higher density and viscosity of the nano-
fluids leads to a higher pressure drop and pumping power.
NPs concentration and temperature influence the viscosity
of the nanofluids [67], and the relationship of these factors
to the pressure drop and pumping power needs to be iden-
tified. Duangthongsuk and Wongwises [67] reported that
the pressure drop with nanofluids was slightly higher than
with the base fluid and increases with increasing volume
concentrations.
Health and safety and waste management of the invalid
nanofluids are challenges to be considered when applying
nanofluids in industry. The impact on the environment by
the nanofluids restricts many kinds of nanofluids contain-
ing heavy metals, toxic substances, or other hazardous sub-
stances [88]. Lack of legislation that affects issues, such as
health and safety, toxicity, environment, waste management
or recycling, should become a main focus in nanotechnology.
Turbulent flow is common in a pipe in many industrial
applications. The Reynolds number is 500 and 1200 for lam-
inar flow, while for turbulent flow, the Reynolds number is
from 4000 to 14,000. Qi et al. [89] found that there is a larger
Fig. 21  Types of colloidal stabilization [81]
13
4396 Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398

increase in heat transfer and a smaller increase in frictional Erosion and corrosion testing are essential to assess any
resistance coefficients for turbulent flow than for laminar adverse physical damage that dispersed nanoparticles may
flow of ­TiO2–water nanofluids in a spirally fluted tube. The impart on the electronic cooling parts. The data are use-
turbulent heat transfer behaviour of T ­ iO2 nanofluid in a ful in designing heat transfer systems and determining the
circular pipe under a fully-developed turbulent regime for performance and applicability of nanofluids. Fotowat et al.
various volumetric concentrations was investigated experi- [91] investigated the effects of ­Al2O3/H2O nanofluid on Al,
mentally by Sajadi and Kazemi [90]. Their measurements Cu, and stainless steel. Their results show that the corrosiv-
showed that the nanofluid’s pressure drop was slightly higher ity of the nanofluid in Al and Cu is significant, whereas it is
than that of the base fluid and increased with increasing negligible in stainless steel. An experimental analysis of cor-
the nanoparticle loading. The effect of nanoparticle loading, rosion and erosion phenomena on metal surfaces by ­TiO2,
viscosity and Reynolds number on the flow and heat transfer ­Al2O3, and ­ZrO2 nanofluids was undertaken by Bubbico
characteristics was important to be investigated to improve et al. [92]. Their finding indicates that no erosion effect was
heat transfer performance of the nanofluids. found on Cu and stainless steel; however, severe damage was
The specific heat of a material is an important property observed on Al. The corrosion rate increased with increasing
to define the thermal performance of any material. In the temperature (27–90 °C) in all cases [93]. Understanding of
nanofluid, specific heat may vary depending on the type of the potential adverse impact of nanoparticles on industrial
material, base fluid and volume fraction of nanoparticles. equipment will increase equipment lifespan.
Generally, the thermal conductivity of the particles, metallic The thermophysical properties of metal oxide nanofluids
or non-metallic, is an order of magnitude higher than that play a major contribution to the efficiency of nanofluid appli-
of the base fluids, even at low concentrations, resulting in cations [94–98]. Additionally, the overall cost of a nanofluid
significant increases in heat transfer, as presented in Fig. 3. is governed by the price of the NPs, base fluid and fabrica-
Nanofluids are known as potential candidates for next-gen- tion methods used to prepare the nanofluids. To stabilize the
eration heat transfer media. However, an important require- NPs, additional chemicals are required. This leads to higher
ment for an ideal heat transfer fluid is high specific heat. production costs for nanofluids. Higher nanofluid production
However, a nanofluid exhibits lower specific heat than base costs are reported when the nanoparticles are more difficult
fluid (Table 3). A higher loading of nanoparticles is required to synthesize. Therefore, the high cost of nanofluids is a
to enhance the thermal conductivity of the nanofluids; how- drawback of nanofluid applications [99].
ever, the specific heat of nanofluids decreased significantly
with nanoparticle loadings. Therefore, the optimum nano-
particle loading is required to balance the thermophysical 7 Conclusions
properties. This condition subsequently limits the use of
nanofluids in various applications. In this report, we have reviewed the recent findings related
to metal oxide nanofluids for electronic cooling. The pros
and cons of HP and LHP have been compared and LHP is
Table 3  Specific heat capacity for different materials [89] more suitable for use in electronic cooling due to numerous
Materials Specific heat advantages, including having no effect on the orientation
(kJ kg−1 K−1) since the evaporator and condenser are separated, which
allows that a variety of different design embodiments to suit
Diamond 0.509
the desired case and different kinds of equipment can be
Silver (Ag) 0.235
installed depending on the scope of the study. Metal oxide
Copper (Cu) 0.385
NPs which are resistant to oxidation, chemically stable and
Silicon carbide (SiC) 1.340
exhibit lower density than metal NPs have gained popularity
Titanium carbide (TiC) 0.711
to be used in nanofluids. Among metal oxide used in nano-
Gold (Au) 0.129
fluids formulations, A
­ l2O3 has been investigated extensively
Aluminium nitride (AlN) 0.740
due to its high thermal conductivity and low density. Addi-
Aluminium (Al) 0.904
tionally, the thermophysical properties of nanofluids were
Silicon (Si) 0.714
influenced by the thermal conductivity, viscosity and surface
Graphite 0.701
tension of metal oxide nanofluids. The stability of nanoflu-
Sodium (Na) 1.230
ids, with and without surfactants, was further discussed as it
Aluminium oxide (­ Al2O3) 0.773
also affects the thermophysical properties of nanofluids. The
Copper oxide (CuO) 0.551
challenges of using nanofluids in engineering applications
Titanium dioxide ­(TiO2) 0.692
are discussed in this review. It is suggested that ­Al2O3 nano-
Water ­(H2O) 4.187
fluids can cause a key breakthrough in cooling of HP and

13
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
LHP in the future. We hope that this review will provide a
good source of knowledge for researchers who are interested
in exploring the stability and thermophysical properties of
metal oxide nanofluids for cooling electronics.
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the financial sup-
port from the Ministry of Education Malaysia through Fundamental
Research Grant Scheme (FRGS; Grant No. 203.PAERO.6071399) and
Universiti Sains Malaysia.
References
1. G. Colango, E. Favale, M. Milanese, A. de Risi, D. Laforgia,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 127, 421–435 (2017)
2. S.M.S. Murshed, Introductory Chapter: Electronics Cooling-An
Overview. Electronics Cooling (IntechOpen, 2016)
3. M. Bahiraei, S. Heshmatian, Energy Convers. Manag. 172, 438–
456 (2018)
4. A.A. Almubarak, Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 7, 52–57 (2017)
5. U.S. Department of Defense, Reliability Predicition of Electronic
Equipment (Springfield, VA, 1974)
6. S.M.S. Murshed, C.A.N. de Castro, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
78, 821–833 (2017)
7. M.D. Shende, A. Mahalle, IOSR, J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 5, 56–61
(2013)
8. W.A. Scott, Cooling of Electronic Equipment (Wiley, New York,
1974), p. 295
9. C.C.M. de Oliveira, M.C. Gutierrez, V.S. Junior, Food Sci. Tech-
nol. 34, 416–421 (2014)
10. D. Wen, G. Lin, S. Vafaei, K. Zhang, Particuology 7, 141–150
(2009)
11. N. Ali, J.A. Teixeira, A. Addali, J. Nanomater. (2019). https​://
doi.org/10.1155/2019/39305​72
12. K.S. Suganthi, K.S. Rajan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 55, 7969–
7980 (2012)
13. K.S. Suganthi, K.S. Rajan, Renew Sustain. Energy Rev. 76,
226–255 (2017)
14. M. Gupta, V. Singh, R. Kumar, Z. Said, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 74, 638–670 (2017)
15. V. Sridhara, L.N. Satapathy, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 6, 456 (2011)
16. H. Jouhara, A. Chauhan, T. Nannou, S. Almahmoud, B. Delpech,
L.C. Wrobel, Energy 128, 729–754 (2017)
17. W. Srimuang, P. Amatachaya, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16,
4303–4315 (2012)
18. Y.F. Maydanik, M.A. Chernysheva, V.G. Pastukhov, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 67, 294–307 (2014)
19. Y.F. Maydanik, Appl. Therm. Eng. 25, 635–657 (2005)
20. D. Wang, Z. Liu, S. He, J. Yang, W. Liu, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
89, 33–41 (2015)
21. C.W. Chan, E. Siqueiros, J.L. Chin, M. Royapoor, A.P. Roskilly,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 615–627 (2015)
22. S. Mohapatra, 2006. An Overview of Liquid Coolants for Elec-
tronics Cooling. Electronics Cooling (IntechOpen, 2016), pp. 1–6
23. Ashrae, ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals (Amer Soc of Heat-
ing, Refrigerating and AC Engineers, 2001)
24. S. Laurent, D. Forge, M. Port, A. Roch, C. Robic, L.V. Elst, R.N.
Muller, Chem. Rev. 110, 2574 (2010)
25. I. Khan, K. Saeed, I. Khan, Arab. J. Chem. 12, 908–931 (2017)
26. H.A. Mohammed, A.A. Al-Aswadi, N.H. Shuaib, R. Saidur,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 2921–2939 (2011)
27. U.S. Shenoy, A.N. Shetty, Front Mater. Sci. 12, 74–82 (2018)
28. L. Kong, J. Sun, Y. Bao, RSC Adv. 7, 12599–12609 (2017)
4397
29. S. Mukherjee, P.C. Mishra, P. Chaudhuri, ChemBioEng Rev. 5,
312–333 (2018)
30. S. Harkirat, D. Gangacharyulu, Part Sci. Technol. 5, 1–8 (2016)
31. M.A. Sabiha, R.M. Mostafizur, R. Saidur, M. Saad, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 93, 862–871 (2016)
32. D.H. Fontes, G. Ribatski, E.P.B. Filho, Diamond Relat. Mater.
58, 115–121 (2015)
33. I.S. Umer, P. Rajashekhar, N. Marneni, S. Lim, Energy Convers.
Manag. 142, 215–229 (2017)
34. L. Liu, M. Wang, Y. Liu, Asia-Pacific Energy Equipment Engi-
neering Research Conference, Zhuhai (2015)
35. Y. Hwang, J.K. Lee, J.K. Lee, Y.M. Jeong, S. Cheong, Y.C. Ahn,
S.H. Kim, Powder Technol 186(2), 145–153 (2008)
36. I.M. Mahbubul, R. Saidur, M.A. Amalina, M.E. Niza, Int. Com-
mun. Heat Mass Transf. 76, 33–40 (2016)
37. S. Lee, S.S. Choi, S.A. Li, J.A. Eastman, J. Heat Transf. 121,
280–289 (1999)
38. D. Zhu, X. Li, N. Wang, X. Wang, J. Gao, H. Li, Curr. Appl.
Phys. 9, 131–139 (2009)
39. H. Chang, Y.C. Wu, X.Q. Chen, M.J. Kao, Taipei Univ. Technol.
J. 5, 201–208 (2007)
40. H. Chang, C.S. Jwo, P.S. Fan, S.H. Pai, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech-
nol. 34, 300–306 (2007)
41. R. Hunter, Zeta Potential in Colloid Science: Principle and
Applications (Academic Press, Waltham, 1981)
42. L. Vandsburger, Synthesis and Covalent Surface Modification
of Carbon Nanotubes for Preparation of Stabilized Nanofluid
Suspensions, MSc. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal 2009
43. H. Yu, S. Hermann, S.E. Schulz, T. Gessner, Z. Dong, W.J. Li,
Chem. Phys. 408, 11–16 (2012)
44. E. Tombácz, D. Bica, A. Hadjú, E. Illés, A. Majzik, L. Vékás, J.
Phys. Condens. Matter 20, 204103 (2008)
45. M.A. Khairul, K. Shah, E. Doroodchi, R. Azizian, B. Moghta-
deri, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 98, 778–787 (2016)
46. J. Huang, X. Wang, Q. Long, X. Wen, Y. Zhou, L. Li, in 2009
Symp. On Photonics and Optoelectronics, Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, Pisctaway Township, 1–4 (2009)
47. G. Xia, H. Jiang, R. Liu, Y. Zhai, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 84, 118–124
(2014)
48. S. Liufu, H. Xiao, Y. Li, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 281, 155–163
(2005)
49. J.J. Wang, R.T. Zheng, J.W. Gao, G. Chen, Nano Today 7, 124–
136 (2012)
50. M.J. Assael, I.N. Metaxa, J. Arvanitidis, D. Christofilos, C. Liou-
tas, Int. J. Thermophys. 26, 646–664 (2005)
51. A. Nasiri, M. Shariaty-Niasar, A. Rashidi, A. Amrollahi, R.
Khodafarin, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 35, 717–723 (2011)
52. N. Parametthanuwat, S. Bhuwakietkumjohn, Y. Rittidech, T.
Ding, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 56, 80–90 (2015)
53. X.Q. Wang, A.S. Mujumdar, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 46, 1–19 (2007)
54. S. Wu, D. Zhu, X. Li, H. Li, J. Lei, Thermochim. Acta 483,
73–77 (2009)
55. D. Wu, H. Zhu, L. Wang, L. Liu, Curr. Nanosci. 5, 103–112
(2009)
56. X.Q. Wang, A.S. Mujumdar, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 25, 631–648
(2008)
57. P. Gunnasegaran, M.Z. Abdullah, N.H. Shuaib, Int. Commun.
Heat Mass 47, 82–91 (2013)
58. M.A.B. Harun, P. Gunnasegaran, N.A.C. Sidik, J. Adv. Res. Des.
52, 13–27 (2019)
59. R.B. Ganvir, P.V. Walke, V.M. Kriplani, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 75, 451–460 (2017)
60. M.M. Tawfik, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 75, 1239–1253
(2017)
61. M. Chandrasekar, S. Suresh, A.C. Bose, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci.
34, 210–216 (2010)
13
4398
62. S. Suresh, K.P. Venkitaraj, P. Selvakumar, M. Chandrasekar, Col-
loids Surf. A 388, 41–48 (2011)
63. W. Duangthongsuk, S. Wongwises, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 33,
706–714 (2009)
64. F.S. Javadi, S. Sadeghipour, R. Saidur, G. BoroumandJazi, B.
Rahmati, M.M. Elias, M.R. Sohel, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf. 44, 58–63 (2013)
65. T.P. Teng, Y.H. Hung, T.C. Teng, H.E. Mo, H.G. Hsu, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 30, 2213–2218 (2010)
66. H.E. Patel, S.K. Das, T. Sundararajan, A.S. Nair, B. George, T.
Pradeep, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 2931–2933 (2003)
67. W. Duangthongsuk, S. Wongwises, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 53,
334–344 (2010)
68. L.S. Sundar, M.K. Singh, A. Sousa, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf. 44, 7–14 (2013)
69. Y. Vermahmoudi, S.M. Peyghambarzadeh, S.H. Hashemabadi,
M. Naraki, Eur. J. Mech. B 44, 32–41 (2014)
70. A.M. Hussein, R.A. Bakar, K. Kadirgama, Case Stud. Therm.
Eng. 2, 50–61 (2014)
71. L.C. Yuan, W.J. Chang, C.T. Chieh, Appl. Energy 88, 4527–4533
(2011)
72. S.K. Das, N. Putra, W. Roetzel, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 46,
851–862 (2003)
73. Y. He, Y. Jin, H. Chen, Y. Ding, D. Cang, H. Lu, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 50, 2272–2281 (2007)
74. G.M.J. Pastoriza, C. Casanova, J.L. Legido, M.M. Piñeiro, Fluid
Phase Equilib. 300, 188–196 (2011)
75. P.K. Namburu, D.P. Kulkarni, A. Dandekar, D.K. Das, Micro.
Nano Lett. 2, 67–71 (2007)
76. M. Ghanbarpour, E.B. Haghigi, R. Khodabandeh, Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 53, 227–235 (2014)
77. S.C. Sandesh, S.K. Sahu, J. Nanotechnol. Eng. Med. 5, 1–6
(2014)
78. C.T. Nguyen, F. Desgranges, N. Galanis, G. Roy, T. Maré, S.
Boucher, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 47, 103–111 (2008)
79. S. Halelfadl, T. Maré, P. Estellé, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 53,
104–110 (2014)
80. P.K. Namburu, D.K. Das, K.M. Tanguturi, R.S. Vajjha, Int. J.
Therm. Sci. 48, 290–302 (2009)
81. M.N. Pantzali, G. Kanaris, K.D. Antoniadis, A.A. Mouza, S.V.
Paras, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 30, 691–699 (2009)
82. M.N. Pantzali, A.A. Mouza, S.V. Paras, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64,
3290–3300 (2009)
83. Y.J. Hwang, J.K. Lee, C.H. Lee, Y.M. Jung, S.I. Cheong, C.G.
Lee, B.C. Ku, S.P. Jang, Thermochim. Acta 455, 70–74 (2007)
13
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics (2020) 31:4381–4398
84. E.B. Haghighi, N. Nikkam, M. Saleemi, M. Behi, S.A. Mirmo-
hammadi, B. Palm, Meas. Sci. Technol. 24, 105301 (2013)
85. V. Srinivas, C.V. Moorthy, V. Dedeepya, P.V. Manikanta, V. Sat-
ish, Heat Mass Transf. 52, 701–712 (2016)
86. W. Yu, H. Xie, J. Nanomater. 2012, 1–17 (2012)
87. E. Tang, G. Cheng, X. Ma, X. Pang, Q. Zhao, Appl. Surf. Sci.
252, 5227–5232 (2006)
88. L. Yang, Y. Hu, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 12, 446 (2017)
89. C. Qi, C. Li, G. Wang, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 12, 516 (2017)
90. A.R. Sajadi, M.H. Kazemi, Int. Commun. Heat Mass 38, 1474–
1478 (2011)
91. S. Fotowat, S. Askar, M. Ismail, A. Fartaj, Sustain. Energy Tech-
nol. 24, 39–44 (2017)
92. R. Bubbico, G.P. Celata, F. D’Annibale, B. Mazzarotta, C.
Menale, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 104, 605–614 (2015)
93. W. Rashmi, A.F. Ismail, M. Khalid, A. Anuar, T. Yusaf, J. Mater.
Sci. 49, 4544–4551 (2014)
94. J. Sarkar, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 3271–3277 (2011)
95. V.Y. Rudyak, A.V. Minakov, Eur. Phys. J. E 41, 15 (2018)
96. V.Y. Rudyak, A.A. Belkin, V.V. Egorov, Tech. Phys. 54, 1102
(2009)
97. K. Kleinstreuer, F. Yu, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 6, 1 (2011)
98. V.Y. Rudyak, S.L. Krasnolutskii, Tech. Phys. 60, 798 (2015)
99. R. Dharmalingama, K.K. Sivagnanaprabhu, B.S. Kumar, R.
Thirumalai, Procedia Eng. 97, 1434–1441 (2014)
100. P. Gunnasegaran, M.Z. Abdullah, M.Z. Yusoff, Procedia Mater.
Sci. 5, 137–146 (2014)
101. N. Putra, R. Saleh, W.N. Septiadi, A. Okta, Z. Hamid, Int. J.
Therm. Sci. 76, 128–136 (2014)
102. M. Moraveji, S. Keshavarz, Razvarz. Int. Commun. Heat Mass
39, 1444–1448 (2012)
103. E.N. Stephen, L.G. Asirvatham, R. Kandasamy, B. Solomon,
G.S. Kondru, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 136, 211–222 (2019)
104. N. Putra, W.N. Septiadi, R. Saleh, R.A. Koestoer, S.P. Prakoso,
Adv. Mater. Res. 875, 356–361 (2014)
105. X.W. Wang, Z.P. Wan, Y. Tang, Heat Mass Transf. 49, 1001–
1007 (2013)
106. P. Gunnasegaran, M.Z. Abdullah, M.Z. Yusoff, Case Stud.
Therm. Eng. 6, 238–250 (2015)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.