sustainability

Article
Experimental Performance Analysis of Flat Plate Solar
Collectors Using Different Nanofluids
Erdoğan Arıkan 1, * ID
, Serkan Abbasoğlu 1 and Mustafa Gazi 2
1 Department of Energy System Engineering, Engineering Faculty Cyprus International University,
Nicosia, Via Mersin 10, Lefkosa 99010, Turkey; sabbas@ciu.edu.tr
2 Department of Chemistry, Arts&Science Faculty Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta,
Via Mersin 10, Lefkosa 99010, Turkey; mustafa.gazi@emu.edu.tr
* Correspondence: erd.arikan@gmail.com; Tel.: +90-533-882-80-40




Received: 25 April 2018; Accepted: 27 May 2018; Published: 30 May 2018


Abstract: In this study, the effect of Al2 O3 -water and ZnO-water nanofluids, with and without
ethylene glycol (EG), on the efficiency of a flat plate solar collector was investigated. Two systems
were set up and the nanofluids with and without EG were examined at the same time. The volume
fraction of the nanoparticles and EG were 0.25% and 25%, respectively. The study was conducted
on three mass flow rates: 0.05 kg/s, 0.07 kg/s, and 0.09 kg/s. ASHRAE Standard 93-2010 was used
to calculate the efficiency. The efficiency of the system was compared to distilled water (base fluid).
The results also showed that an increase in the mass flow rate and use of the EG increased efficiency.
Furthermore, in comparison with the base fluid, the maximum increase in efficiency (15.13%) was
observed at 0.09 kg/s when using a Al2 O3 -water/EG nanofluid.

Keywords: solar collector performance; nanofluids; ethylene glycol; Cyprus

1. Introduction
To date, fossil fuels have been used to supply the majority of our energy demand, as these are
much cheaper and more feasible than alternative energy sources. On the other hand, their negative
impact on the environment has been a major concern, which has led scientists to search for alternative
energy sources, such as solar energy. According to recent findings, it has been found that solar energy is
superior to fossil fuels because solar energy is cleaner and does not cause any environmental pollution.
Therefore, solar energy has become a widely used energy source for heating water, especially in
countries with hot climates. Although other systems are available, stationary (non-concentrating) and
concentrating systems are the main types of water-heating systems in use.
The stationary collector uses the same area to intercept and absorb solar radiation, whereas the
reflecting surfaces of the concentrating solar collector generally have a concave shape for intercepting
and focusing the solar radiation into a smaller area and, therefore, increases the radiation flux [1].
Recently, many researchers have examined the efficiency of solar collectors. The studies have
usually been classified into six topics: the new heat transfer fluids (nanofluid) in solar thermal collectors,
novel materials, integrated solar thermal collectors, heat pipe solar collectors, novel geometries, and
hybrid thermal collectors [2].
The efficiency of the flat plate solar collector is dependent on many factors, including the position
of the sun, weather conditions, the orientation and the tilt angle of the panel, the material composition
and mounting structure of the panel, the mass flow rate, and the type of working fluid.
Innovative heat transfer fluids have been suggested as a method to increase the efficiency of energy
systems due to their thermal conductivity, which is dependent upon the mixing of solid nanoparticles

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1794; doi:10.3390/su10061794 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1794 2 of 11

with conventional heat transfer fluids, such as water, ethylene glycol, and oil. These mixtures are
called nanofluids, a term developed by Choi [3].
Yousefi et al. studied Al2 O3 nanofluid (with and without surfactant) as a working fluid in a flat
plate solar collector. Triton X-100 was used as a surfactant, and Al2 O3 nanofluids were tested in
terms of their nanoparticle concentration at two different weight fractions: 0.2% and 0.4%. During
the test periods, the mass flow rate was stabilized at three different rates: 1 L/min, 2 L/min, and
3 L/min, in order. The ASHRAE 93-2010 [4] standard was used to calculate the efficiency. The results
demonstrated that the efficiency of the solar collector compared to water as a working fluid was
enhanced by 28.3% when using a 0.2 wt % Al2 O3 nanofluid. The maximum increase in efficiency was
15.63% when using the surfactant [5].
Babu et al. studied the efficiency of a flat plate solar collector with and without ZnO/water
nanofluid. The nanofluid was prepared with a 0.1% weight fraction and mass flow rates were chosen
as 0.0084 kg/s, 0.0167 kg/s, and 0.025 kg/s. Results indicated that the efficiency of the flat plate solar
collector increased by 7.03% at 0.0084 kg/s, 6.59% at 0.0167 kg/s, and 4.13% at 0.025 kg/s when using
the ZnO-water nanofluid compared to water [6].
Bhatti et al. have numerically investigated entropy generation for non-Newtonian Eyring-Powell
nanofluids. The results indicated that the nanofluid concentration profile affected the Brownian motion
parameter and Lewis number inversely; a decrease in temperature profile caused an increase in the
Prandtl number [7].
Hayat et al. investigated the effect of different thicknesses of Riga plates on the boundary
layer flow. Heat transfer properties are studied with convective boundary conditions and heat
generation/absorption. The impacts of velocity, temperature and nanoparticles volume fraction
distributions are shown graphically. The results showed that the increase of the Hartman number
occurred with the decrease of velocity distribution [8].
The experimental results of the previous studies were represented as graphs and equations which
showed the collector efficiency versus a reduced temperature parameter, (Ti − Ta )/GT [9–13].
To date, no study has examined the performance of a flat plate solar collector using nanofluids with
EG and without EG simultaneously. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficiency of commonly
used solar collectors under hot climate conditions with nanofluids. Furthermore, the efficiency was
investigated by using ethylene glycol (EG) with nanofluids under hot climate conditions.
This study was organized as follows: Section 2 comprises the methodology, Section 3 covers the
results and discussion of the study, and Section 4 reports the conclusions.

2. Methodology
Two systems were designed and constructed. Initially, only base fluid (distilled water)
measurements were made to calibrate the data loggers, rotameter, and to detect the fluid leaks.
The fluid was loaded into the system by a water pump and air was removed by vacuum breaker.
Inlet and outlet temperature of the working fluid, temperature of the plate, and ambient
temperature were measured by a data logger in Nicosia (PASCO, model number: PS-2002). During
the experiments, all temperature values fell in the wide range (−35 ◦ C to +135 ◦ C) of the sensors,
which could be measured in Kelvin [14]. Solar radiation was measured by a pyranometer (Kipp Zonen,
model number: SMP II).
The results of the tests with the base fluid were found to be very similar with previous
studies [5,12,15]. The tests were performed between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. during November.
All represented data were recorded every 30 min. Each test was carried out within two days and
the best experimental data was picked. The experimental results contained the performance of the
solar collector using water, Al2 O3 -water, ZnO-water with EG and without EG. The concentration of
nanoparticles and EG were chosen as 0.25% and 25%, respectively. The solar collector was examined
for different mass flow rates of 0.05 kg/s, 0.07 kg/s, and 0.09 kg/s for each type of working fluid.
The tests were performed with EG and without EG at the same time for each nanofluid, and the tests
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1794 3 of 11

were Sustainability
also carried 2018,out
10, x for
FOR base fluid and water/EG mixture. One of the systems used was
PEER REVIEW 3 of for
11 the
nanofluid with EG and the other one was used for the nanofluid without EG.
base fluid and water/EG mixture. One of the systems used was for the nanofluid with EG and the
other one wasSetup
2.1. Experimental used for the nanofluid without EG.

In
2.1.this study, two
Experimental Setupsystems with same technical specifications were designed and constructed.
The schematic and real pictures of the experimental setup are shown in Figure 1. The specifications of
In this study, two systems with same technical specifications were designed and constructed.
the experimental setups are demonstrated in Table 1.
The schematic and real pictures of the experimental setup are shown in Figure 1. The specifications
The systems were installed ◦
of the experimental setups areatdemonstrated
Cyprus International
in Table 1.University (Nicosia, Cyprus) located on 35.17
latitude and ◦ longitude in the northern hemisphere.
The33.36
systems were installed at Cyprus International University (Nicosia, Cyprus) located on
The
35.17°absorber
latitude plate and tubes
and 33.36° of the
longitude collectors
in the northern(1hemisphere.
in Figure 1) were manufactured from galvanized
sheet andThe theabsorber
tilt angle (β)and
plate of each
tubes collector was 45
of the collectors (1 ◦in. Figure
The specifications of the collectors
1) were manufactured are shown
from galvanized
sheet
in Table 1. and the tilt angle (β) of each collector was 45°. The specifications of the collectors are shown in
Table 1.
As shown in 7 in Figure 1, the system had a tank to soak up the heat energy from the collector
As shown in 7 in Figure 1, the system had a tank to soak up the heat energy from the collector
cycle. The capacity of the tanks were 60 L and the tanks were insulated by foam with a thickness
cycle. The capacity of the tanks were 60 L and the tanks were insulated by foam with a thickness of 2
of 2 cm. Additionally, the tanks had copper heat exchangers (8 in Figure 1). Experimental setups
cm. Additionally, the tanks had copper heat exchangers (8 in Figure 1). Experimental setups had a
had acirculating
circulating pump (Wita U65) and each pump (11 in Figure 1) had a maximum flow rate with
pump (Wita U65) and each pump (11 in Figure 1) had a maximum flow rate with 1.33 kg/s
1.33 kg/s [16].
[16]. In In addition
addition to this,to
thethis, the systems
systems had a rotameter
had a rotameter (12 1)
(12 in Figure in in
Figure
front 1)
of in
thefront
pumpoftothe
fixpump
the to
fix the flow
flow raterate value.
value.

Figure
Figure 1.1.The
Theschematic
schematic of
of experimental
experimental setup.
setup.

Table 1. Specifications of the solar collector.

Table 1. Specifications of the solar collector.
Parameter Dimension Units
Parameter
Solar Collector 172Dimension
(L) × 93 (W) × 8 (T) cm Units
Absorber
Solar Collector Area 170 (L) × 90 (W) × 0.5
172 (L) × 93 (W) × 8 (T) (T) cm cm
AbsorberCover
Areaof Glass Sheet170 (L) × 90 (W) 0.5× 0.5 (T) cm cm
GlassSheet
Cover of Glass Wool Insulation 0.5 4 cm cm
Glass Wool Insulation
Diameter of tubes 4 1.9 cm cm
Diameter of tubes
Fin Thickness 1.90.3 cm cm
Fin Thickness 0.3 cm
2.2. Nanofluid Preparation
2.2. Nanofluid Preparation
In this study, two different nanoparticles, with and without ethylene glycol (EG) were studied.
Aluminum
In oxide
this study, two(Al 2O3) and zinc oxide (ZnO) were chosen as nanoparticles with a 0.25% volume
different nanoparticles, with and without ethylene glycol (EG) were studied.
fraction. Al2O3 (CAS number: 1344-28-1), ZnO (CAS number: 1314-13-2), and EG (CAS number: 107-
Aluminum oxide (Al2 O3 ) and zinc oxide (ZnO) were chosen as nanoparticles with a 0.25% volume
21-1) were provided from Merck Millipore. The nanofluids prepared with EG were determined at a
fraction. Al2 O3 (CAS number: 1344-28-1), ZnO (CAS number: 1314-13-2), and EG (CAS number:
107-21-1) were provided from Merck Millipore. The nanofluids prepared with EG were determined
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1794 4 of 11

at a 25:75 ratio of EG:water (distilled water). The densities of ZnO and Al2 O3 were 3.94 g/cm3 [17]
and 5.61 g/cm3 [18], respectively. The size of nanoparticles were 0.196 µm and 68.12 µm for ZnO and
Al2 O3 , respectively. According to Wang and Mujumdar [19], assessment with several data showed
that the improvement in the thermal conductivity of nanofluids improved with a reduction in particle
sizes. This study can be improved by using different nanoparticle size.
The nanofluids were prepared by using a homogenizer (DAIHAN Scientific Co. Ltd., Korea,
model number: HG-15D) and were weighed using an electronic balance (Sartorius, Göttingen,
Germany, model number: KD-KC).
One liter (1 L) of each type of nanofluid was prepared. Nanoparticles with water or with water-EG
mixture were stirred for 30 min with the homogenizer.
The volume concentration at the dispersed fluid is represented by the following equation [20]:

1
Φv = × 100(%) (1)
(100/Φm )(ρn/ρ f ) + 1

where Φv , Φm , ρn , and ρf , are the volume concentration, mass concentration, density of the
nanoparticles, and the density of the fluid, respectively.
The heat capacity of the nanofluid is calculated as follows [21]:

c p,n f = Φv c p,n + (1 − Φv )c p, f (2)

where cp,nf , cp,n , and cp,f are heat capacity of the nanofluid, the nanoparticles, and the fluid, respectively.

2.3. Energy Analysis

ASHRAE Standard 93-2010 was used to evaluate the thermal performance of the flat plate solar
collectors. Firstly, the effect of solar rays hitting the collector surface was investigated by using solar
angles and the area of the collector. In this calculation, refracted solar radiation was excluded and total
absorbed radiation was calculated; collector losses were also considered.
Additionally, heat removal factor (FR) was determined by dividing the actual output with fluid
inlet temperature. Then, FR value with total absorbed energy were used to find the system efficiency.
When the inlet and outlet fluid temperatures as well as the flow rate of the working fluid were
measured, the useful energy could be calculated using the formula below [4]:
.
Q = m.c p,n f .( To − Ti ) (3)

The instant collector efficiency depends on the relationship among useful energy, total incident
radiation, and the area of the collector surface [4]:
.
m.c p,n f .( To − Ti )
η= (4)
A.GT
.
where m, cp,nf , To , Ti , A, and GT are the mass flow rate, heat capacity of the nanofluid, outlet fluid
temperature, inlet fluid temperature, collector area, and solar radiation, respectively.
The equation of useful energy can also be shown in terms of the energy absorbed and the energy
lost, as given by Equation (5):

Q = AFR [ GT (τα) − UL ( Ti − Ta )] (5)

where FR , (τα), and UL are the heat removal factor, absorptance-transmittance product, and overall
loss coefficient of the solar collector, respectively. To calculate the thermal efficiency, as shown in
Equations (5) and (6), we divided by the energy input [4]:
 η = FR (τα ) − [ FRU L ( i a
)] (6)
GT

2.4. Climate Conditions

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1794 5 of 11
This study was carried out in Cyprus, which has the highest solar irradiation in Europe,
comprising more than 300 days of sunny weather. In Cyprus, the annual irradiation is 2.000 kWh/m2
on a tilted surface of 27.58°, which isηmuch T − Ta
= FR (higher
τα) − [than
FR ULthe
( isunniest )] area of the world’s largest market, (6)
Germany [22]. The minimum mean temperature is 4 °C during GT the winter, whereas the maximum
mean temperature is 30 °C during the summer.
2.4. Climate Conditions
Figure 2 represents an average recorded data of solar radiation (W/m2) and ambient temperature
This study
(°C) between wasand
9 a.m. carried
3 p.m.out in Cyprus, which has the highest solar irradiation in Europe,
in November.
comprising
Table 2more showsthan 300
the days of sunny
meteorology weather.
values In Cyprus,
of Cyprus per the annual
month [23].irradiation
As shownis in2.000 kWh/m
Table 2, the2
on a tilted surface ◦
of 27.58 ,iswhich
highest global irradiance 8.12 is much 2higher
kWh/m /day inthan the On
June. sunniest area ofhand,
the other the world’s largestambient
the highest market,
Germany [22]. The minimum mean temperature is 4 ◦ C during the winter, whereas the maximum
temperature is 29.4 °C in August.
mean temperature is 30 ◦ C during the summer.
Figure 2 represents an average Table 2. Meteorology
recorded data values
ofofsolar
Cyprus.radiation (W/m2 ) and ambient
◦
temperature ( C) between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. in November. Table 2 shows the meteorology values of
Global Irradiance Diffuse Irradiance Ambient Temperature
CyprusMonthper month [23]. As shown in Table 2, the highest global irradiance is 8.12 kWh/m2 /day in
(kWh/m2/Day) (kWh/m2/Day) ◦ (°C)
June. On the other hand, the highest ambient temperature is 29.4 C in August.
January 2.49 0.92 12.2
February 3.44 Table 2. Meteorology values 1.17of Cyprus. 11.9
March 4.83 1.45 13.9
April
Month 5.98 (kWh/m /Day) Diffuse Irradiance
Global Irradiance 2 1.80 (kWh/m /Day)
2 Ambient17.5
Temperature (◦ C)
May
January 7.24
2.49 1.860.92 21.612.2
February 3.44 1.17 11.9
June
March
8.12
4.83
1.711.45 25.913.9
July
April 7.93
5.98 1.661.80 29.317.5
May 7.24 1.86 21.6
August
June 7.08
8.12 1.541.71 29.425.9
September
July 5.88
7.93 1.301.66 26.829.3
August 7.08 1.54 29.4
October
September 4.26
5.88 1.131.30 22.726.8
November
October 2.87
4.26 0.951.13 17.722.7
November 2.87 0.95 17.7
December
December 2.20
2.20 0.850.85 13.713.7
Average
Average 5.20
5.20 1.361.36 20.220.2

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Average solar radiation
Average solar radiation and
and ambient
ambient temperature
temperature between
between 99 a.m.
a.m. and
and 33 p.m.
p.m. in
in November.
November.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Efficiency vs. (Ti − Ta )/GT for Nanofluid without Ethylene Glycol
Figure 3 shows the efficiency (η) vs. (Ti − Ta )/GT (reduced temperature parameter) for water,
Al2 O3 , and ZnO at 0.05 kg/s, 0.07 kg/s, and 0.09 kg/s, respectively. This study was carried out
to compare the efficiency of Al2 O3 -water and ZnO-water nanofluids with the efficiency of water.
3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Efficiency vs. (Ti − Ta)/GT for Nanofluid without Ethylene Glycol
Figure2018,
Sustainability 3 shows
10, 1794the efficiency (η) vs. (Ti − Ta)/GT (reduced temperature parameter) for water, 6 of 11
Al2O3, and ZnO at 0.05 kg/s, 0.07 kg/s, and 0.09 kg/s, respectively. This study was carried out to
compare the efficiency of Al2O3-water and ZnO-water nanofluids with the efficiency of water. For
For three
three working
working fluids,
fluids, the efficiency
the efficiency of theof the collector
solar solar collector is demonstrated
is demonstrated in Figurein Figure
3: base 3: baseAlfluid,
fluid, 2O3-
Al O
water, -water, and ZnO-water nanofluids. The efficiency was calculated to
2 3 and ZnO-water nanofluids. The efficiency was calculated to be similar for all working fluids.be similar for all working
fluids.
The The
Al2O Al2 O3nanofluid
3-water -water nanofluid
was more wasefficient
more efficient
than the than the ZnO-water
ZnO-water nanofluid,
nanofluid, which whichwas morewas
more efficient
efficient than the thanbase
the fluid.
base fluid. This predominantly
This was was predominantly causedcaused
by thebythermal
the thermal conductivity
conductivity of the of
the nanoparticles, which were 2.3 W/mK [24] and 3.89 W/mK [18] for
nanoparticles, which were 2.3 W/mK [24] and 3.89 W/mK [18] for ZnO and Al22O3,3 respectively. ZnO and Al O , respectively.
According to the findings, higher thermal conductivity leads to higher efficiency. efficiency.
Using water as the working fluid, the maximum efficiencies
Using water as the working fluid, the maximum efficiencies of the of the flat plate
flatsolar
platecollector obtained
solar collector
at 0.05 kg/s,
obtained 0.07 kg/s,
at 0.05 kg/s,0.07
and kg/s,
0.09 kg/s
and mass flowmass
0.09 kg/s rates flow
were rates
59.21%, 62.17%,
were and62.17%,
59.21%, 64.36%,and respectively.
64.36%,
The minimumThe
respectively. efficiencies
minimum of the flat plate of
efficiencies solar
thecollector
flat platewere 28.12%,
solar 31.55%,
collector wereand28.12%,
32.05%,31.55%,
respectively.
and
As shown in Figure 3, the efficiency increased by 8.02%, 9.55%, and 11.15%
32.05%, respectively. As shown in Figure 3, the efficiency increased by 8.02%, 9.55%, and 11.15% for for three different mass
flow rates
three whenmass
different usingflow
Al2 O 3 ; inwhen
rates comparison,
using Al the
2Oefficiency increasedthe
3; in comparison, byefficiency
4.17%, 5.29%, and 5.81%
increased when
by 4.17%,
using ZnO.
5.29%, and 5.81% when using ZnO.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Cont.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1794 7 of 11
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 11

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 11

(c)
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Variations
Variations of
of the
the collector
collector efficiency
efficiency versus
versus the
the reduced
reduced temperature
temperature parameter
parameter (a)
(a) for
for the
the
0.05 kg/s mass flow rate; (b) for the 0.07 kg/s mass
0.05 kg/s mass flow rate; (b) for the 0.07 kg/s mass flow rate; and (c) for the 0.09 kg/s mass flow rate.
(c)flow rate; and (c) for the 0.09 kg/s mass flow rate.
Figure 3. Variations of the collector efficiency versus the reduced temperature parameter (a) for the
3.2. Efficiency vs. (Ti − Ta)/GT for Nanofluid with Ethylene Glycol
3.2. Efficiency
0.05 kg/s (Ti −flow
vs. mass Ta )/G
rate; for for
T (b) Nanofluid withmass
the 0.07 kg/s Ethylene Glycol
flow rate; and (c) for the 0.09 kg/s mass flow rate.
Figure
Figure
4 shows
4 shows
the efficiency
the efficiency
of the solar
of the solar
collector
collector
for three working fluids: base fluid/EG, Al2O3-
for three working fluids: base fluid/EG,
3.2. Efficiency
water/EG, vs. (Ti − Ta)/GT for
and ZnO-water/EG Nanofluid with
nanofluids. TheEthylene
efficiencyGlycol
was calculated to be similar for all working
Al2 O3 -water/EG, and ZnO-water/EG nanofluids. The efficiency was calculated to be similar for all
fluids. The Al2O43shows
Figure -water/EGefficiency
nanofluid was more efficient thanworking
ZnO-water/EG nanofluid,
fluid/EG, which
Al2O3- was
working fluids. The Al2the O3 -water/EG of the solar
nanofluidcollector for three
was more efficient than fluids: base
ZnO-water/EG nanofluid,
morewater/EG,
efficient and
thanZnO-water/EG
the base fluid/EG. nanofluids. The efficiency
According was calculated
the results, the ethylene to beglycol
similarhad
for all workingeffect
a greater
which was more efficient than the base fluid/EG. According the results, the ethylene glycol had
on thefluids. The Althan
efficiency 2O3-water/EG nanofluid
the nanofluid was more
without efficient
ethylene thanin
glycol ZnO-water/EG
terms of obtaining nanofluid, which
higher was
values.
a greater
more effect onthan
efficient the the
efficiency
base than the
fluid/EG. nanofluid
According the without
results, theethylene
ethylene glycol
glycol in terms
had a of effect
greater obtaining
When making a comparison between Figures 3 and 4, the effect of EG can be seen. To observe
higheron values. When
the efficiency making
than a comparison
the nanofluid betweenglycol
without ethylene Figures 3 and
in terms of 4, the effect
obtaining of EG
higher can be seen.
values.
this effect, two experimental setups were constructed and the tests were performed simultaneously
To observe Whenthismaking
effect,atwo experimental
comparison betweensetups
Figureswere
3 and constructed
4, the effect ofand the be
EG can tests
seen.were performed
To observe
with EG and without EG.
simultaneously with
this effect, two EG and without
experimental setups EG.were constructed and the tests were performed simultaneously
In comparison
with EG and withoutwith water/EG, the efficiency increase at these mass flow rates was 8.56%, 10.28%,
In comparison with EG.water/EG, the efficiency increase at these mass flow rates was 8.56%, 10.28%,
and 13.34%, In respectively
comparison withwhen using Alefficiency
water/EG, 2O3-water/EG, and the efficiency
mass flow enhanced by 4.41%, 5.68%,
and 13.34%, respectively when usingthe increase
Al2 O3 -water/EG, at these
and the efficiency rates was 8.56%,
enhanced 10.28%,
by 4.41%, 5.68%,
and 6.86%, respectively,
and 13.34%, respectively whenwhen using
using ZnO-water/EG,
Al2O3-water/EG,as canthebe seen in Figure 4.
and 6.86%, respectively, when using ZnO-water/EG, asand
can beefficiency enhanced
seen in Figure 4. by 4.41%, 5.68%,
For
and the
6.86%,nanofluid withwhen
respectively, EG, theusingremoved energy as
ZnO-water/EG, parameter,
can be seenFRinUFigure
L, was 4.lower while the absorbed
For the nanofluid with EG, the removed energy parameter, FR UL , was lower while the absorbed
For the nanofluid with EG, the removed energy parameter,
energy parameter, FR(τα), was greater than the base fluid without EG. Therefore, F R UL , was lower while
thethe absorbedof the
efficiency
energy parameter, FR (τα), was greater than the base fluid without EG. Therefore, the efficiency of the
energy parameter, F (τα), was greater than the base fluid without EG.
collector using the nanofluid with EG was greater than the base fluid with or without EG [9].
R Therefore, the efficiency of the
collector using
collector the the
using nanofluid
nanofluid with
with EGEGwaswasgreater
greater than thebase
than the basefluid
fluidwithwith or or without
without EG EG
[9]. [9].

(a)
(a)
Figure 4. Cont.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1794 8 of 11
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 11

(b)

(c)
Figure 4. Variations of collector efficiency using working fluid/EG versus the reduced temperature
Figure 4. Variations of collector efficiency using working fluid/EG versus the reduced temperature
parameter (a) for the 0.05 kg/s mass flow rate; (b) for the 0.07 kg/s mass flow rate; and (c) for the 0.09
parameter (a) for the 0.05 kg/s mass flow rate; (b) for the 0.07 kg/s mass flow rate; and (c) for the
kg/s mass flow rate.
0.09 kg/s mass flow rate.
When water with EG was compared the water without EG at the mass flow rates of 0.05 kg/s,
0.07 kg/s,
When andwith
water 0.09 EG
kg/s,was
thecompared
efficiency increased
the waterby 1.31%, EG
without 1.63%, andmass
at the 1.79%, respectively.
flow Thekg/s,
rates of 0.05
efficiency increase in Al 2O3-water/EG at these mass flow rates was 1.85%, 2.36%, and 3.98%,
0.07 kg/s, and 0.09 kg/s, the efficiency increased by 1.31%, 1.63%, and 1.79%, respectively.
respectively, when compared to Al2O3-water nanofluid. Additionally, the efficiency of ZnO with EG
The efficiency increase in Al2 O3 -water/EG at these mass flow rates was 1.85%, 2.36%, and 3.98%,
at these mass flow rates increased by 1.55%, 2.02%, and 2.84%, respectively, compared to ZnO tested
respectively, when compared to Al2 O3 -water nanofluid. Additionally, the efficiency of ZnO with EG
without EG.
at these mass flow rates increased by 1.55%, 2.02%, and 2.84%, respectively, compared to ZnO tested
without
3.3. EG.
Effect of the Mass Flow Rate

3.3. Effect The typical

of the Massexample of the recorded data is represented in Figure 5 for all nanofluids, showing
Flow Rate
the impact of the mass flow rates. The similar results were observed in three different mass flow rates.
The typical example
The efficiency of the
of the solar recorded
collector data by
increased is represented
enhancing theinmass
Figure 5 rates.
flow for allThus,
nanofluids, showing
these results
the impact of the that
demonstrate mass flow rates.
increasing the The similar
Reynolds results
number were observed
enhances in three
the efficiency [5]. different mass flow rates.
The efficiency of the solar collector increased by enhancing the mass flow rates. Thus, these results
demonstrate that increasing the Reynolds number enhances the efficiency [5].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1794 9 of 11
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 11

Figure 5. Experimental curve of the nanofluids.

Figure 5. Experimental curve of the nanofluids.
When all the working fluids were compared in terms of the three different mass flow rates, the
maximum
When efficiency
all the workingincrease
fluidswas
were10.41% when using
compared Al2Oof
in terms 3-water/EG.
the threeOn the other
different hand,
mass therates,
flow
minimum efficiency
the maximum increase
efficiency was was
increase 5.15%10.41%
when using
when water only.
using Al2 O3 -water/EG. On the other hand,
the minimum efficiency increase was 5.15% when using water only.
3.4. Comparison with Previous Studies
3.4. Comparison
Yousefiwith
et al.Previous Studies
studied the flat plate solar collector by using 0.2 wt % Al2O3 as working fluid; they
found that the efficiency increase was 28.30% at 3 L/min mass flow rate. According to their results,
Yousefi et al. studied the flat plate solar collector by using 0.2 wt % Al2 O3 as working fluid;
this increase was a result of the nanofluid having a higher absorbed energy parameter, FR(τα), than
they found that the efficiency increase was 28.30% at 3 L/min mass flow rate. According to their results,
the water [5].
this increase
Babuwas a result
et al. of nanofluid
studied the nanofluid
with having
ZnO and a higher absorbed
they observed energy
a 4.13% parameter,
efficiency FR (τα),
increase than the
at 0.025
waterkg/s
[5].mass flow rate. They concluded that this increase was dependent on the amount of heat energy
Babu et al.bystudied
absorbed nanofluid
flat plate with ZnO
solar collector, highand they
outlet observed aof4.13%
temperature efficiency
the working increase
fluid, and theatweight
0.025 kg/s
massconcentration
flow rate. They of theconcluded
nanoparticlesthat
[6]. this increase was dependent on the amount of heat energy
absorbedThe results
by flat found
plate in this
solar study on
collector, highthe influence of ZnO was nearly
outlet temperature of thesimilar
working withfluid,
the results found
and the weight
in this study. However, there
concentration of the nanoparticles [6]. was a difference between the results of Al2O3 and the results of this

study.
The This difference
results found in wasthis based
studyononusing different amounts
the influence of Alnearly
of ZnO was 2O3 and the application of different
similar with the results found
mass flow rates.
in this study. However, there was a difference between the results of Al2 O3 and the results of this
study.4.This difference was based on using different amounts of Al2 O3 and the application of different
Conclusions
mass flow rates.
This study was conducted to determine the effect of nanofluids on the performance of flat plate
solar collectors. The tests were performed at three mass flow rates of 0.05 kg/s, 0.07 kg/s, and 0.09
4. Conclusions
kg/s for Al2O3-water and ZnO-water nanofluids with a 0.25% volume fraction. Moreover, the tests
This
were study was conducted
performed to determine
using nanofluids the effect
with a 25:75 ratio of
of nanofluids on the and
EG:water mixture performance
without EG.of flat
Theplate
solar ASHRAE
collectors.93-2010
The tests were performed
standard was used foratcalculating
three masstheflow rates of 0.05
efficiencies. The kg/s, 0.07 of
highlights kg/s, and 0.09
the study are kg/s
for Alsummarized as follows:
2 O3 -water and ZnO-water nanofluids with a 0.25% volume fraction. Moreover, the tests were
performed using nanofluids
 Efficiency of the solar with a 25:75
collector ratio of EG:water
was enhanced mixture
by increasing andflow
the mass without
rate. EG. The ASHRAE
93-2010
 standard was
Nanofluid used for
enhanced thecalculating the efficiencies.
acquired energy parameter ofThe
thehighlights of the study are summarized
solar collector.
 The nanofluid with EG increased the efficiency compared to the nanofluid without EG.
as follows:
 When EG was added to the base fluid, the efficiency increases of the system were noted as 2.21%,
4 Efficiency
2.62%, of
andthe solaratcollector
2.78%, was
three mass enhanced
flow by increasing
rates of 0.05 theand
kg/s, 0.07 kg/s, mass flow
0.09 kg/s,rate.
respectively.
4 
Nanofluid enhanced
The efficiency the acquired
increase energyatparameter
in Al2O3-water these threeof the flow
mass solarrates
collector.
was recorded as 2.75%,
4 The 3.29%, and 5.27%
nanofluid with EGwhen using EG.
increased the efficiency compared to the nanofluid without EG.
4  The efficiency of the
When EG was added to the base system when using
fluid, the ZnO-water increased of
efficiency increases bythe
2.45%, 2.99%,
system andnoted
were 4.05%asfor
2.21%,
the three different mass flow rates when EG was added.
2.62%, and 2.78%, at three mass flow rates of 0.05 kg/s, 0.07 kg/s, and 0.09 kg/s, respectively.
4 The efficiency increase in Al2 O3 -water at these three mass flow rates was recorded as 2.75%,
3.29%, and 5.27% when using EG.
4 The efficiency of the system when using ZnO-water increased by 2.45%, 2.99%, and 4.05% for the
three different mass flow rates when EG was added.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1794 10 of 11

Author Contributions: E.A. and S.A. designed and constructed the system; M.G. prepared the nanofluids; and all
of authors analyzed the data.
Acknowledgments: This study was supported by the Paralik Solar Collector Manufacturing Ltd., Nicosia,
Cyprus and Sağsan San. Tic. Ltd., Famagusta, Cyprus.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
Nomenclature
EG Ethylene glycol
Al2 O3 Aluminum oxide
ZnO Zinc oxide
ASHRAE The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
CAS Chemical Abstracts Service
cp,nf Heat capacity of the nanofluid (j/gK)
cp,n Heat capacity of the nanoparticles (j/gK)
cp,f Heat capacity of the fluid (j/gK)
Q Useful energy (j)
m Mass flow rate (kg/s)
To Outlet fluid temperature (K)
Ti Inlet fluid temperature (K)
Ta Ambient temperature (K)
A Solar collector area (m2 )
GT Solar radiation (W/m2 )
FR Heat removal factor
(τα) Absorptance-transmittance product
UL Overall heat loss coefficient (W/m2 K)
η Efficiency
L Length (cm)
W Width (cm)
T Thickness (cm)
Greek Symbols
φv Volume concentration
φm Mass concentration
ρn Density of nanoparticle (g/cm3 )
ρf Density of fluid (g/cm3 )
β Collector tilt angle (◦ )
∆T Outlet fluid temperature and inlet fluid temperature differences (◦ C)

References
1. Kalogirou, S.A. Solar Energy Engineering Processes and Systems, 1st ed.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2009;
pp. 121–214, ISBN 978-0-12-374501-9.
2. Colangelo, G.; Favale, E.; Miglietta, P.; Risi, A. Innovation in Flat Solar Thermal Collectors: A Review of the
Last Ten Years Experimental Results. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 1141–1159. [CrossRef]
3. Xuan, Y.; Li, Q. Heat Transfer Enhancement of Nanofluids. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2000, 21, 58–64. [CrossRef]
4. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. ASHRAE 93-2010
(RA 2014), Methods of Testing to Determine the Thermal Performance of Solar Collectors; ASHRAE: Atlanta,
GA, USA, 2014.
5. Yousefi, T.; Veysi, F.; Shojaeizadeh, E.; Zinadini, S. An Experimental Investigation on the Effect of Al2 O3 -H2 O
Nanofluid on the Efficiency of Flat-Plate Solar Collectors. Renew. Energy 2012, 39, 293–298. [CrossRef]
6. Babu, S.A.; Raja, M. An Experimental Investigation on the Effect of ZnO/Water Nanofluid on the Efficiency
of Flat-Plate Solar Collector. Adv. Nat. Appl. Sci. 2016, 7, 40–48.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1794 11 of 11

7. Bhatti, M.M.; Abbas, T.; Rashidi, M.M. Entropy Generation as a Practical Tool of Optimisation for
Non-Newtonian Nanofluid Flow through a Permeable Stretching using SLM. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2017, 4.
[CrossRef]
8. Hayat, T.; Abbas, T.; Ayub, M.; Farooq, M.; Alsaedi, A. Flow of Nanofluid due to Convectively Heated Riga
Plate with Variable Thickness. J. Mol. Liquid 2016, 222. [CrossRef]
9. Zamzamian, A.; Rad, M.K.; Neyestani, M.K.; Jamal-Abad, M.T. An Experimental Study on the Effect of
Cu-Synthesized/EG Nanofluid on the Efficiency of Flat-Plate Solar Collectors. Renew. Energy 2014, 71,
658–664. [CrossRef]
10. Montoya-Marquez, O.; Flores-Prieto, J.J. The Effect of Inclination on the Efficiency in a Medium-Temperature
Flat Plat Solar Collector. Energies 2017, 10, 71. [CrossRef]
11. Noghrehabadi, A.; Hajidavalloo, E.; Moravej, M. Experimental Investigation of Efficiency of Square Flat-Plate
Solar Collector Using SiO2 /Water Nanofluid. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2016, 8, 378–386. [CrossRef]
12. Moghadam, A.J.; Farzane-Gord, M.; Sajadi, M.; Hoseyn-Zadeh, M. Effects of Cu/Water Nanofluid on the
Efficiency of a Flat-Plate Solar Collector. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2014, 58, 9–14. [CrossRef]
13. He, Q.; Zeng, S.; Wang, S. Experimental Investigation on the Efficiency of Flat-Plate Solar Collectors with
Nanofluids. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 88, 165–171. [CrossRef]
14. PASCO. PASPORT Temperature Sensor—PS-2125: PASCO. Available online: www.pasco.com/prodCatalog/
PS/PS-2125_pasport-temperature-sensor/index.cfm (accessed on 11 March 2018).
15. Michael, J.J.; Iniyan, S. Performance of Copper Oxide/Water Nanofluid in a Flat Plate Solar Water Heater
under Natural and Forced Circulations. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 95, 160–169. [CrossRef]
16. U 65—WITA® . Available online: www.wita.de/en/products/pump-technology/wita-u-55-kopie/2
(accessed on 11 March 2018).
17. Merck Millipore: ZnO—SDS Report. Available online: www.merckmillipore.com/search/1314-13-2
(accessed on 22 May 2018).
18. Merck Millipore: Al2 O3 —SDS Report. Available online: www.merckmillipore.com/search/1344-28-21
(accessed on 22 May 2018).
19. Wang, X.Q.; Mujumdar, A.S. Heat Transfer Characteristics of Nanofluis: A Review. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2007, 46.
[CrossRef]
20. Pak, B.C.; Cho, Y. Hydrodynamic and Heat Transfer Study of Dispersed Fluids with Submicron Metallic
Oxide Particle. Exp. Heat Transf. 1998, 11, 151–170. [CrossRef]
21. Zhou, S.Q.; Ni, R. Measurement of the Specific Heat Capacity of Water-Based Al2 O3 Nanofluid.
Appl. Phys. Lett. 2008, 92. [CrossRef]
22. Zinsser, B.; Makrides, G.; Schmitt, W.; Werner, J.H. Annual Energy Yield of 13 Photovoltaic Technologies
in Germany and in Cyprus. In Proceedings of the 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference,
Milan, Italy, 3–7 September 2007.
23. Abbasoglu, S.; Adedeji, M.; Şenol, M. Determination of Optimum Tilt and Azimuth Angles for Photovoltaic
Systems in Northern Cyprus. In Proceedings of the Solar TR2014, İzmir, Turkey, 19–21 November 2014.
24. Xu, Y.; Goto, M.; Koto, R.; Tanaka, Y.; Kagawa, Y. Thermal Conductivity of ZnO Thin Film Produced by
Reactive Sputtering. J. Appl. Phys. 2012, 111. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).