International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

An experimental study on stability and thermal conductivity

of water-graphene oxide/aluminum oxide nanoparticles as a
cooling hybrid nanofluid
Roozbeh Taherialekouhi, Saeid Rasouli ⇑, Arezoo Khosravi ⇑
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Khomeinishahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khomeinishahr, Isfahan, Iran

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

Article history: This experimental study investigated the thermal conductivity of the hybrid nanofluid of water–gra-
Received 25 July 2019 phene oxide (GO) nanostructure/aluminum oxide (Al2O3) nanoparticles at a temperature range of 25–
Received in revised form 10 September 50 °C and volume fractions of 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1%. The quality of nanoparticles was ensured using
2019
XRD and SEM analysis. The volume fraction of nanoparticles in all experiments was 50%. The DLS test was
Accepted 16 September 2019
then conducted to ensure nanofluid stability and determine the particle-size distribution (PSD) in the
nanofluid. The thermal conductivity of the hybrid nanofluid was measured using the KD2 device at dif-
ferent temperatures and volume fractions. The results indicated that increasing the temperature from 25
Keywords:
Hybrid nanofluid
to 50 °C and the volume fraction from 0.1% to 1% increased the thermal conductivity of the nanofluid up
Graphene oxide to 33.9%, with the former having a greater effect. Based on the results, compared to the base fluid, the
Aluminum oxide nanoparticles largest improvement in thermal conductivity (33.9%) was achieved at the volume fraction of 1% and
Thermal conductivity the temperature of 50 °C. Given that no accurate and proper relation exists for the prediction of thermal
Stability conductivity in this fluid, a relation was presented using mathematical modeling. The proposed relation
was a function of volume fraction and temperature and was well consistent with the experimental
results.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ers, nuclear cooling system, air space, antibacterial properties,

Using nanofluids instead of conventional fluids such as water,
oil, ethylene glycol, and acetone has recently gained more atten-
tion in order to improve the heat transfer [1]. Nanofluid is obtained
through distribution of solid particles of 1–100 nm in base fluids
[2]. One of the most important parameters in nanofluids is the
thermal conductivity. Generally, common fluids such as water,
ethylene glycol, and oil used in heat transfer have low thermal con-
ductivity. Nanoscale particles could increase the thermal conduc-
tivity of the fluid due to their high thermal conductivity and
uniform distribution in the base fluid [3,4]. In addition to improv-
ing heat transfer, using nanofluid is beneficial in reducing the size
of heat transfer systems, reducing the power for fluid pumping,
saving energy and costs, and reducing the glandular duct compared
to the fluids containing micro-sized particles [5]. Nanofluids have
widespread use in engine cooling, electronic fields, heat exchang-
⇑ Corresponding authors at: P.O. Box: 84175-119, Iran.
E-mail addresses: saeid.rasouli@iaukhsh.ac.ir (S. Rasouli), khosravi@iaukhsh.ac.ir
(A. Khosravi).
and solar energy systems [6–10].
Numerous nanomaterials have been studied in the nanofluids
thermo-physical properties investigations including metallic
nanoparticles (Ag [11], Fe [12], and Cu [13]), oxide nanoparticles
(SiO2 [14], Al2O3 [15,16], Fe2O3 [3,17], TiO2 [18,19], and CeO2
[20,21]), and carbon nanostructures (carbon nanotubes [22] and
graphene oxide [23]).
In an experimental study, Ahmadi et al. [24] measured the ther-
mal conductivity of silica nanoparticles/ethylene glycol water at a
temperature range of 25–50 °C and a volume fraction of 0.1–5%.
The thermal conductivity coefficient increased with increasing
temperature and volume fraction, the highest thermal conductivity
coefficient has been 45.5% in a volume fraction of 5% and at 50 °C.
Kayvani et al. [20] in another study, examined the heat transfer
coefficient of cerium oxide/ethylene glycol nanofluid, measured
in a temperature range of 25–50 °C and a volume fraction of
0.25–2.5%. The results showed that the thermal conductivity
coefficient of the nanofluid increased with increasing temperature
and volume fraction. At 50 °C and a volume fraction of 2.5%, the
thermal conductivity of the nanofluid was increased about 22%.
Kakavandi et al. [25] in another experimental study investigated

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.118751
0017-9310/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751
Nomenclature
DLS Dynamic Light Scattering
GO Graphene Oxide
h (W/m2K) Heat transfer coefficient
k (W/mK) Thermal conductivity
Al2 O3 Aluminum Oxide
SEM Scanning Electron Microscope
T (°C) Temperature
TCR Thermal Conductivity Ratio
TEM Transmission Electron Microscope
V (ml) Volume
XRD X-ray diffraction
the preparation, stability, and thermal conductivity of a combined
nanofluid consists of MWCNTs-SiC/Water-EG. The experiments
were carried out at a temperature range of 25–50 °C and a volume
fraction range of 0–0.75%. The nanofluid thermal conductivity coef-
ficient increased at higher concentrations of nanoparticles and
high temperatures. The biggest improvement in the thermal con-
ductivity coefficient with the combined nanofluid was 33% com-
pared to the base fluid, which was corresponded to 0.75% volume
fraction and 50 °C. Due to the favorable thermal properties of this
nanofluid, it can be used as an alternative fluid in practical systems.
Ranjbarzadeh et al. [26] investigated the thermal conductivity of
nanofluid water/silicon oxide in an experimental study, which syn-
thesized nanoparticles from plant sources. The experiments were
carried out at a temperature range of 25–55 °C and in a volume
fraction of 0.1–3%. Based on their results, the highest thermal con-
ductivity coefficient was related to 3% volume fraction at 55 °C.
Ranjbarzadeh et al. [27,28] also in other studies used graphene
oxide/water nanofluid as heat transfer fluid in cool air and constant
temperature systems, their results suggest that using this nano-
fluid improves heat transfer performance and increases the heat
transfer coefficient.
Recently, researchers have focused on hybrid nanofluids, a new
class of nanofluids made up of two or more different types of nano-
materials such as ZnO-Ag [29], MWCNT-SiO2 [30], MWCNT-CuO
[31], MWCNT-ZnO [32], MWCNT-Al2O3 [33], MWCNT-TiO2 [34],
Al2O3-Cu [35], Fe3O4-CNT [36], and Fe3O4-Ag [37]. The thermal
conductivity of these hybrid nanofluids have been increased with
the increasing of nanoparticles volume fraction [38,39]. According
to the results, using these nanoparticles can improve the thermal
performance of the systems. Akilu et al. [40] investigated the ther-
mal conductivity and viscosity of a combined nanofluid titanium–
copper oxide/carbon (TiO2-CuO/C) and ethylene glycol base fluid.
The thermal conductivity and nanofluid viscosity were measured
in various volumetric concentrations (0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2%) and tem-
perature from 30 to 60 °C. According to the results, the highest
thermal conductivity of nanofluids was 16.7%, while the viscosity
increased by about 80% and the temperature was 313.4 K and vol-
ume fraction was 2%. In an experimental study, Leong et al. [41]
examined the thermal conductivity of a nanofluid with the
water-ethylene glycol base fluid and the copper-titanium oxide
nanoparticles. The effects of various factors (weight percentage of
nanoparticles, types of surfactants, pH of the base fluid solutions)
on the thermal conductivity of the hybrid nanofluid were investi-
gated. A combination nanofluid, containing 0.8% of titanium
oxide-copper and polyvinyl pyridone (PVP) as surfactant, showed
the highest thermal conductivity coefficient, which represents an
improvement of 9.8% compared to the base fluid. In an experimen-
tal study, Hussein et al. [42] investigated combined nanofluids con-
Greek symbol
u ð%Þ Solid volume fraction
l kg/ms Dynamic viscosity
q (kg/m3) Density
Subscripts
bf base fluid
Exp Experimental
nf nanofluid
r Ratio
np Nanoparticle
pred Predicted
taining water/nanoplate of graphene and MWCNTs/GNPs multi-
core carbon nanotubes and a 1.2 mm diameter mini-tube. The lam-
inar flow was assumed with Reynolds 200–500. The experiments
were carried out with a volume fraction of 0.075%, 0.125%, and
0.25% of multi-core carbon nanotube and 0.035% of graphene
nanoplates. The thermal conductivity coefficient increased with
increasing volume fraction and decreased with increasing Rey-
nolds number. The greatest improvement in thermal conductivity
was 43.4%, with a 0.25% fraction of multi-core carbon nanotubes
and 0.135% graphene nanoplates with a Reynolds 200 and an
11% increase in pressure.
In this study, with the aim of increasing the thermal conductiv-
ity of water, a novel hybrid nanofluid containing graphene oxide
nanoplatelets and spherical alumina with a 50:50 volume ratio
was used. Such hybrid nanofluid could have an improved thermal
conductivity due to existence of graphene nanostructure with high
thermal conductivity with lower total cost due to the lower price of
alumina nanoparticles compared with graphene. To the best of our
knowledge, using such hybrid nanofluid has not yet been reported
in the literature. The thermal conductivity of the nanofluid in dif-
ferent volume fractions of the hybrid nanoparticles (0.1, 0.25, 0.5,
0.75, and 1%), and at different temperatures ranging from 25 to
50 °C was measured using a thermal analyzer (KD2). Finally, based
on the experimental results, curve fit method using Sigmaplot V12
software, an experimental relationship was proposed for calculat-
ing the thermal conductivity of this nanofluid within the test
range.
2. Experimental
2.1. Preparation of the nanofluid
One of the main challenges in the preparation of long-term sus-
tainable nanofluids since achieving uniform and improved proper-
ties in nanofluids is directly related to its sustainability [34,43].
Here, a two-step method was used to prepare the samples due to
the lack of uniformity in the base fluid density and nanoparticles,
to determine precisely the volume fraction of nanoparticles and
the extent of the nanoparticles and base fluid that is required for
various volume fractions (Eq. (1)).


VGO þ VAl2 O3
u¼  100 ð1Þ
VGO þ VAl2 O3 þ VH2 O
where u is the volume fraction of the nanoparticles in the base fluid,
VGO, VAl2O3, VH2O are the base fluid volume (pure water), the volume
of aluminum oxide nanoparticles and the volume of graphene oxide
nanoparticles respectively.
 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751
Table 1 shows the amounts required for the preparation of a
mixture of water/graphene oxide nanoparticles in the various frac-
tion volumes. In addition, the density of water, graphene oxide,
and alumina are 0.98, 1, and 3.89 g/cm3, respectively.
The values were calculated using Eq. (1), then through the dig-
ital balance, the mass of the nanoparticles and the base fluid, the
pH of which was controlled by the pH meter on 7, were measured,
and then were mixed with the magnetic stirrer. To prevent
nanoparticles from clotting and clustering, reach a uniform distri-
bution of nanoparticles in the base fluid, and to homogenize them
and provide a stable suspension, each sample was shaken for
45 min in ultrasonic vibration apparatus. Then, using the dynamic
light scattering (DLS), which is a non-destructive and rapid method
for determining the distribution of particles in the suspension, the
stability of the present suspension was investigated.
2.2. Methods for measuring the thermal conductivity coefficient
In this study, hot transition method was used by KD2 and KS-1
sensors. The advantages of this method are its ability to eliminate
experimental errors due to natural displacement, high speed, high
accuracy, and simplicity of design of the testing mechanism. The
KD2 device of the American company Decagon Devices Inc. could
measure the thermal conductivity coefficient in the range of 0.2–
2 W/mK in the range of 50 to +150 °C, as well as the KS-1 sensor
of 60 mm length and a diameter of 27.1 mm. The KD2 measuring
device uses Eq. (2) to obtain a thermal conductivity coefficient.
 
q t2
k¼ ln
4pðT 2  T 1 Þ t1
where k is the thermal conductivity coefficient, q is the constant
heat rate, T2 and T1 are the temperatures at times t2 and t1,
respectively.
Before the test, the device is first calibrated; a water bath is
used to adjust the temperature of the samples. To prevent free
movement of the sensor, the device is positioned vertically, the test
time is adjusted to a minimum of 1 min to minimize the tempera-
ture difference between the nanofluid and the sensor.
Based on the results of the experiment, the relative thermal
conductivity coefficient, and the thermal conductivity enhance-
ment are calculated using Eq. (3).
knf
kr ¼
kbf
Thermal conductivity enhancement ð%Þ ¼ ðkr  1Þ  100
where kr, knf, and kbf are the relative thermal conductivity coeffi-
cient, the thermal conductivity coefficient of the nanofluid, and
the thermal conductivity coefficient of the base fluid, respectively.
2.3. Description of the experiments
The samples are composed of a mixture of water and graphene
oxide and alumina nanoparticles. Experiments were carried out at
a temperature range of 25–50 °C and with different volume frac-
Table 1
Masses of nanoparticles and Water required for providing various volume fractions.
Al2O3 content (g) GO content (g) Water content (g) Volume fraction (%)
0 0 49 0.00
0.097 0.025 48.951 0.10
0.243 0.063 48.8775 0.25
0.486 0.125 48.755 0.50
0.729 0.188 48.6325 0.75
0.973 0.025 48.51 1.00
3
tions of 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1%. The effects of volume fraction
and temperature on the thermal conductivity of nanofluid were
investigated. The results of the experiment were compared with
the results of the well-known models such as the Maxwell model,
the Hamilton-Croeser model, the Le-Lin model [44–46], and the
results of the comparison of the thermal conductivity of the nano-
fluid with the water/graphene oxide nanofluid were compared.
Then, relatively close relationships were presented based on exper-
imental results to predict the thermal conductivity of the
nanofluid.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of nanoparticles
Graphene oxide nanostructures, in comparison with conven-
tional metal oxide nanoparticles such as aluminum oxide and cop-
per oxide, have a very high surface area, high thermal conductivity,
and low density. Perhaps the only major problem with this group
of nano-materials is its high cost [47]. Aluminum oxide nanoparti-
cles are high in purity, have a small particle size and uniform struc-
ture. In addition, aluminum oxide nanoparticles have chemical
stability, high thermal conductivity, low coefficient of thermal
expansion and high abrasion resistance [48]. Table 2 represents
the physical and chemical properties of the two used nanoparti-
cles. In order to study the structure and surface of nanoparticles,
X-ray diffraction (XRD), and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
tests were used and the results are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
ð2Þ
The use of aluminum oxide nanoparticles in the combined
nanofluid can improve the physical structure of graphene oxide
nanoparticles, which in addition to reducing the viscosity of the
nanofluid compared to the nanofluid of water/graphene oxide,
causes descending the cost of the produced nanofluid with
improved properties. In this experiment, distilled water was used
as the base fluid.
3.2. Dynamic light scattering (DLS)
The size distribution of nanomaterials in the nanofluids were
investigated by the DLS method [49] and the results are shown
in Fig. 3a,b. In the case of a mixture of aluminum oxide nanoparti-
cles and graphene oxide, the particle size is 37 nm (Fig. 3a). To
ð3Þ
investigate the stability of nanofluids, their size distribution were
measure after 30 days, and the results are shown in Fig. 3b. As it
ð4Þ is shown, the size distribution of nanoparticles in the nanofluids
did not show any significant change, which confirms the stability
of this nanofluid.
3.3. Validation of the results
To confirm the precision of the measured thermal conductivity
coefficients with the KD2-Pro device, the thermal conductivity of
the base fluid was measured in the range of 25–50 °C and the
Table 2
Properties of the tested nanoparticles.
Properties Specifications
Material GO Al2O3
Nanoparticle shape Nanoplatelet Nearly spherical
Size (nm) 3.4–7 (Thickness) 20
Purity 99% 99%
Color Black White
Density (g/cm3) 1 3.89
Surface-to-volume ratio (m2/g) 100–300 138<
4 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751

Fig. 1. SEM micrographs of nanoparticles.

Fig. 2. XRD spectra of nanoparticles.

results were compared with the Handbook of Ashrae [50]. The
results showed that the machine has high precision so that the
maximum error of the lab results with Ashrae Handbook is
0.96%. The results are shown in Fig. 4.
3.4. Thermal conductivity
3.4.1. The effect of temperature changes on thermal conductivity
In this section, the effect of temperature on the thermal conduc-
tivity of the nanofluid consisting a combination of water-graphene
oxide/aluminum oxide in the temperature range of 25–50 °C in dif-
ferent volume fractions is shown. Regarding the performance of
the experiment in this temperature range, it should be noted that
the temperature increase should not cause the natural displace-
ment of the nanofluid and cause an error in the measurement of
thermal conductivity.
Fig. 5 shows the changes in the thermal conductivity of the
nanofluid in terms of temperature and in the volume fractions 0,
0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1% in the form of a graph. By examining the
graphs and the results, it can be seen that with increasing temper-
ature, the thermal conductivity coefficient also increases. More-
over, it is shown that as the volume fraction increases, the
temperature effect on the thermal conductivity coefficient
increases and the gradient of the graph is more intense because
the number of nanoparticles in the base fluid and the number of
intermolecular collisions is higher. The highest thermal conductiv-
ity coefficient increase (33.9%) was in volume fraction 1% and tem-
perature 50 °C.
By observing the experimental results, it can be seen that with
increasing temperature, the thermal conductivity of the nanofluid
is increased. As the nanofluid temperature increases, the motion,
vibration and velocity of the base fluid molecules increases due
to the collision impact of these molecules with the nanoparticles
(although the amount of these collision impacts is marginal due
to the smaller mass of the molecules of the fluid relative to the
nanoparticles, however, the number of molecular encounters is
infinitely high), and Brownian motion as well as micro-scale dis-
placement increases the thermal conductivity coefficient [51,52].
 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751
Fig. 3. The particles size distribution of nanoparticles after nanofluids production
(a) and after 30 days (b).
Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental data of thermal conductivity of pure water and
Ashrae reference at various temperatures.
Another point that should be noted is that the rise in tempera-
ture causes the molecular bonds to be weakened in the fluid layers
and to increase the nanoparticle movement, which increases the
more collision between nanoparticles, and finally the thermal con-
ductivity of the nanofluid increases.
3.4.2. The effect of temperature changes on the relative heat
conductivity coefficient
In order to better understand the changes in the thermal con-
ductivity coefficient of the nanofluid, a parameter is defined by
5
Fig. 5. Variations of nanofluids thermal conductivity versus temperature for
various nanofluid samples.
the expression ‘‘relative heat conduction coefficient”. This coeffi-
cient is obtained from the ratio of the thermal conductivity coeffi-
cient of the nanofluid to the thermal conductivity coefficient of the
base fluid. Fig. 6 shows the variation of the relative heat conductiv-
ity coefficient in terms of temperature in the range of 25–50 °C and
the volume fractions 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1%. In all diagrams, a sim-
ilar trend is observed; with increasing temperature, the relative
heat conduction coefficient of the nanofluid is increased. When
the fluid temperature rises, the particle dispersion would be
higher, and the Brownian force becomes stronger, causing the ther-
mophysical phenomenon to occur, so that the nanoparticles tend
to disperse faster in warmer regions and slower dispersion in
colder regions, as well as the movement from warm areas to cold
regions, resulting in the dispersion of nanoparticles in all nanoflu-
ids and an increase in thermal conductivity [53].
Fig. 6. Thermal conductivity ratio of nanofluid versus temperature in different
volume fractions.
6 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751
According to the figure, the trend of the relative heat conductiv-
ity coefficient increase has increased with increasing temperature,
so that the relative thermal conductivity coefficient at the lowest
temperature of 25 °C and the volumes fractions of 0.1, 0.25 0.5,
0.75, and 1% increased by 1.9, 4.4, 7.1, 11.3, and 15.7%, respectively.
This relative thermal conductivity coefficient was increased 5.9,
12.1, 18.5, 26.3, and 33.9% at the highest test temperature of
50 °C, which suggests a positive effect of increasing the tempera-
ture on the improvement of the heat conduction coefficient.
3.4.3. Investigating the effect of volume fraction changes on thermal
conductivity
The effect of volume fractional variations on the graphene
oxide-water/alumina combined nanofluid thermal conductivity
coefficient at 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 °C were investigated and the
results are shown in Fig. 7. It should be noted that the percentage
of nanofluid volume fraction should not be increased, which could
cause agglomeration and deposition of the nanoparticles and
reducing the thermal conductivity, and also increasing the viscos-
ity of the nanofluid, which could cause other problems. As it is
shown in Fig. 7, by increasing the volume fraction and the temper-
ature, the thermal conductivity coefficient increases, with the
effect of the creep being more pronounced; in lower volume frac-
tions, the effect of increasing the temperature is lower, and as the
volume fraction increases, the temperature increase has a greater
effect on the thermal conductivity of the nanofluid.
The positive effect of increasing the volume fraction on the
improvement of the nanofluid thermal conductivity is due to the
use of nano-sized particles, which has a much larger surface-to-
volume ratio than other fine and large particles and also due to
the high thermal conductivity coefficient of metal nanoparticles,
oxides, and carbon.
Movement of the fluid bulk along with particle inertia, shear
force, transverse forces and electrical forces between particles
and dual particle layers, hydrodynamic oppositions between parti-
cle pairs or between particles and walls, high molecular contrast,
Brownian motion, and the shear flow are the reasons which contin-
uously change the particles, and the internal structure of the sus-
pension; Thus, nanoparticles come close to each other and
produce agglomeration, which is generally in the direction of the
gradient of temperature and creates conduction paths which facil-
itates the heat transfer and increases the thermal conductivity [54–
Fig. 7. Thermal conductivity versus solid volume fraction at different temperatures.
56]. It could be concluded that these nanoparticles could show an
improved efficiency in elevated temperature. Thus, it could be con-
cluded that as the temperature increases, Brownian motion
increases, and the increase of the volume fraction at high temper-
atures increases the heat transfer coefficient, and in low-volume
fraction, the temperature has a weak influence on heat transfer
coefficient.
3.4.4. Effect of volume fraction changes on the relative heat
conductivity coefficient
Fig. 8 shows the variation of the relative heat conductivity coef-
ficient in terms of volume fraction and temperature range from 20
to 50 °C. The results show an increase in the thermal conductivity
by increasing the volume fraction. To calculate the thermal con-
ductivity coefficient, in addition to calculating the thermal conduc-
tivity of the fluid and nanoparticles, it should be taken into account
that the nanoparticles consist of two parts: (a) nanoparticles with
thermal conductivity ks, and (b) the solid layer of the base fluid
molecules that surrounds the nanoparticle and its thermal conduc-
tivity coefficient is shown with ksf.
Due to strong intermolecular forces at the solid-fluid interface,
some of their base fluid molecules are bonded to the surface of the
nanoparticles, forming a layer with a solid’s properties. The solid
layer formed by the base fluid molecules has the properties of
the solid phase of the base fluid. Due to the higher thermal conduc-
tivity of the solids than the base fluid, the formation of a solid layer
increases the thermal conductivity of the nanofluid [56–59]. The
highest increase (33.9%) was observed in 1% volume fraction and
50 °C.
As the volume fraction increases, the thermal conductivity of
the nanofluid increases, but it should be kept in mind that the
excessive increase in the concentration of nanoparticles would
increase the probability of sticking particles and reducing the
surface-to-volume ratio, as well as cause to agglomerate and even-
tually the settling of nanoparticles and hence the relative thermal
conductivity decreases.
3.4.5. Comparison between results from this study with the results of
the famous theoretical relations
Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the results obtained from the
mathematical models with the estimated relative thermal
Fig. 8. Thermal conductivity ratio of nanofluid versus solid volume fraction at
different temperatures.
 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751 7

conductivity coefficient with the results of the test at 25–50 °C One of the most widely used relationships to predict the ther-
and in the volume fraction of 0.1 to 1% vol. The most commonly mal conductivity of nanoparticles is the Maxwell relationship,
used models are Maxwell [46], Hamilton-Croeser [44], and which is based on the theory of effective environments. In order
Lu-Lin [45]. to evaluate the ability of this model to predict the thermal

Fig. 9. Comparison between results from this study with theoretical models.
8 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751

conductivity of the present nanowire, the comparison between the
relative thermal conductivity coefficients of the nanofluid obtained
in vitro and the results of the Maxwell model is shown in a dia-
gram. By analyzing the diagrams, it is clear that the Maxwell model
is not able to predict the thermal conductivity of this nanofluid.
Perhaps because the Maxwell model is not able to cover the effect
of particle size and temperature effects in its computation, and also
to predict the thermal conductivity uses nanoparticles containing
spherical particles so a large difference in the results is made and
this model is not capable of calculating the thermal conductivity
of this nanofluid. The Maxwell model [46] is shown in the Eq. (5).
knf kp þ 2kbf þ 2ðkp  kbf Þu
¼ ð5Þ
kbf kp þ 2kbf  ðkp  kbf Þu
where (knf) is the thermal conductivity of the nanofluid, (kbf) is the
thermal conductivity of the base fluid, (kp) is the thermal conductiv-
ity coefficient of the nanoparticles and (u) is the nanoparticles vol-
ume fraction.

Table 3
Thermal conductivity ratio achieved from this study results and available theoretical models.

U (%) 25 °C 30 °C 35 °C 40 °C 45 °C 50 °C Maxwell Hamilton-Croeser Lu-Lin

0.1 1.019 1.029 1.033 1.044 1.045 1.059 1.002 1.004 1.002
0.25 1.044 1.062 1.079 1.090 1.105 1.121 1.007 1.011 1.005
0.5 1.071 1.101 1.117 1.139 1.150 1.185 1.015 1.022 1.011
0.75 1.112 1.144 1.180 1.190 1.225 1.262 1.022 1.033 1.017
1 1.157 1.204 1.227 1.25 1.299 1.339 1.030 1.045 1.022

Fig. 10. Comparison of experimental results with graphene oxide-water.

 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751 9

By studying the Lu-Lin model, it was found that the effect of observed that although 50% of the volume of graphene oxide was
temperature and particle shape and all efficacious parameters on replaced with aluminum oxide, the thermal conductivity of the
the thermal conductivity coefficient has not been considered and nanofluid was not significantly reduced.
only the effect of the solid volume fraction has been considered. To compare the results of this study with other studies, a brief
As expected, the experimental results have a significant deviation overview on results of some studies on thermal conductivity
from the results of this model, and with increasing volumetric enhancement in nanofluids are summarized in Table 4.
and temperature fractures, these deviations also increase.
Therefore, this model cannot predict the thermal conductivity 3.4.7. Mathematical modeling
of this nanofluid. The Lu-Lin model [45] is shown in the Eq. (6). Since there is no proper relation to accurately predict the ther-
knf mal conductivity of graphene oxide-water/alumina nanofluid, a
¼ 1 þ 2:25u þ 2:27u2 ð6Þ relation was proposed here as a function of volume fraction and
kbf
temperature. The proposed relation (Eq. (9)) is expressed as a
The Hamilton-Croeser [44] model (Eq. (7)) is, in fact, the more mathematical equation that is a power factor and shows the vari-
comprehensive model of Maxwell’s relation, which also takes into ation of the thermal conductivity coefficient as a function of tem-
account the volume fraction of the particle shape effect. Despite perature and volume fraction.
the great influence of temperature on the thermal conductivity of
knf   
the nanofluid, the Hamilton-Croeser model still does not consider ¼ 0:0031  T 1:185  u0:863 þ 1:006; Rsqr ¼ 0:98 ð9Þ
the effects of temperature and particle diameter such as the Max- kbf
well model, and the results of this model have great deviations to
In order to check the precision of the proposed equation, the
laboratory results, and are not able to correctly predict the thermal
margin of deviation is expressed as Eq. (10) [69].
conductivity of the nanofluid [60].
2k    3
k
knf kp þ ðn  1Þkbf þ ðn  1Þðkp  kbf Þu  knf
nf

¼ ð7Þ 6 kbf
exp
 
bf pred 7

kbf kp þ ðn  1Þkbf  ðkp  kbf Þu MOD ¼ 4 knf

5  100 ð10Þ
kbf
exp
In this equation, n is the coefficient of the nanoparticle shape
and is calculated according to the Eq. (8). The Pred and Exp subscripts display the predicted amounts by
the proposed relationships and the experiment amounts, respec-
3
n¼ ð8Þ tively. By comparing the experimental results with the results of
W
W is the ratio of the surface area of the sphere with the volume
equal to the nanoparticle volume to the particle surface area.
In Table 3, the results of the relative thermal conductivity coef-
ficients achieved from the experiments, along with those achieved
from the well-known theoretical relations, are presented. Given
the theoretical results and their mismatch with experimental
results, none of the theoretical relationships can be used to predict
the thermal conductivity coefficient.

3.4.6. Comparison of experimental results from this study with

experimental results of variation of thermal conductivity coefficient of
nanofluid water-graphene oxide
Fig. 10 shows the comparison of the thermal conductivity coef-
ficient achieved from the experimental results with the results of
the water-graphene oxide test at 30, 40, and 50 °C in the solid vol-
ume fractions of 0.1, 0.25 and 0.75%.
The use of graphene oxide nanoplates in nanofluid increases the
thermal conductivity considerably, compared with other oxide
nanoparticles. Due to the high cost of purchasing graphene oxide
nanoplates, it may not be economical to use this nanostructure
to provide nanofluid. Therefore, to overcome this problem, 50% of
Fig. 11. The deviation margin of computed results compared to the experimentally
the aluminum oxide and graphene oxide were used to prepare
results.
the nanofluid, which also reduced the costs significantly. It is

Table 4
An overview on the results of some studies on thermal conductivity enhancement in nanofluids.

Authors Base fluid Dispersed particles Temperature (°C) Concentration (%) Maximum enhancement (%)
Present study Water GO-Al2O3 25–50 0.1–1 33.9
Zadkhast et al. [31] water MWCNT-CuO 25–50 0.05–0.6 30.38
Esfahani et al. [61] Water ZnO-Ag 25–50 0.125–2 35.5
Iranmanesh et al. [62] Water Graphene 20–60 0.5–1 wt% 32
Hemmat Esfe et al. [63] EG Mg(OH)2 24–65 0.1–2 23
Sadri et al. [64] Water GNP 20–45 0.025–0.1 22
Sinha et al. [65] Water ZnO 25 0.1–5 33
Abdul Hamid et al. [66] Water-EG TiO2-SiO2 30–80 1.0 (Different mixture ratios) 16
Moldoveanu et al. [67] Water Al2O3–SiO2 20–50 1–3 23.6
Asadi et al. [68] Oil Al2O3-MWCNT 25–50 0.125–1.5 45
10 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751

the proposed equation in Fig. 11, it is observed that most of the the experimental results shown in the graph is 1.598% and the
points are located on the bisector or near, which shows the high minimum fringe of deviation is 1.376%. This amount of deviation
precision of this equation. The maximum fringe of deflection from margin for an empirical relationship is acceptable.

Fig. 12. Comparison of the lab results with the proposed equation.
 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751
3.4.8. Comparison between results from this study and the results of
proposed equation
In order to better compare the relative thermal conductivity
coefficient acquired from the experimental results and the relative
thermal conductivity coefficient derived from the proposed rela-
tionship, the value of these coefficients are presented in terms of
volume fraction at various temperatures (Fig. 12). These graphs
demonstrate the difference between the output of the math model
and the experimental results. As it is shown in Fig. 12, the maxi-
mum fringe of deflection of the mathematical relation with the
experimental results at 25 °C and in different volume fractions is
1.376% and the minimum fringe of deflection is 0.53%.
4. Conclusion
In this study, the thermal conductivity coefficient of water-
graphene oxide/alumina nanofluid at 25–50 °C and the volume
fractions of 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1% were investigated. Using
SEM and XRD tests, the physico-chemical characteristics of
nanoparticles were assured. The DLS method was used to ensure
stability of nanofluid and to specify the particle size distribution
in the nanofluid. Then, the KD2 device was used to measure the
thermal conductivity of the combined nanofluid at different tem-
peratures and volume fractions. According to the results, the effect
of increasing the volume fraction at constant temperature has led
to an increase in the thermal conductivity of the nanofluid. Increas-
ing the volume fraction of nanoparticles increases the thermal con-
ductivity coefficient due to the more density of solid particles in a
given volume. The results demonstrated that the effect of temper-
ature increase in constant volume fraction increased the thermal
conductivity coefficient. The reason for the increase is proposed
to be attributed to the increase of the Brownian motion and the
kinetic energy of the molecules and the increase in the number
of collisions between the molecules. Moreover, it could be con-
cluded that these nanoparticles could show an improved efficiency
in elevated temperature. Given the results and diagrams, it is evi-
dent that the effect of increasing the volume fraction on the
increase in the thermal conductivity coefficient is greater than
the effect of temperature. Due to the lack of an accurate and suit-
able equation to predict the thermal conductivity of the nanofluid
consisting of water-graphene oxide/alumina, a relation was
derived based on the results of measurements as a function of vol-
ume fraction and temperature.
The results of this paper confirm that hybrid nanofluids could
have superior role in the development of nanotechnology applica-
tions in cooling systems. This area needs further researches to
extend the human knowledge about the existing mechanisms
and more accurate relationships.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.118751.
References
[1] P. Barnoon, D. Toghraie, R.B. Dehkordi, H. Abed, MHD mixed convection and
entropy generation in a lid-driven cavity with rotating cylinders filled by a
nanofluid using two phase mixture model, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 483 (2019)
224–248.
11
[2] S.U. Choi, J.A. Eastman, Enhancing Thermal Conductivity of Fluids with
Nanoparticles, Argonne National Lab, IL (United States), 1995.
[3] D. Toghraie, S.M. Alempour, M. Afrand, Experimental determination of
viscosity of water based magnetite nanofluid for application in heating and
cooling systems, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 417 (2016) 243–248.
[4] M. Soltanimehr, M. Afrand, Thermal conductivity enhancement of COOH-
functionalized MWCNTs/ethylene glycol–water nanofluid for application in
heating and cooling systems, Appl. Therm. Eng. 105 (2016) 716–723.
[5] J. Buongiorno, D.C. Venerus, N. Prabhat, T. McKrell, J. Townsend, R.
Christianson, Y.V. Tolmachev, P. Keblinski, L.-W. Hu, J.L. Alvarado, A
benchmark study on the thermal conductivity of nanofluids, J. Appl. Phys.
106 (9) (2009), 094312.
[6] O. Mahian, A. Kianifar, S.Z. Heris, D. Wen, A.Z. Sahin, S. Wongwises, Nanofluids
effects on the evaporation rate in a solar still equipped with a heat exchanger,
Nano Energy 36 (2017) 134–155.
[7] T.-U. Rehman, H.M. Ali, M.M. Janjua, U. Sajjad, W.-M. Yan, A critical review on
heat transfer augmentation of phase change materials embedded with porous
materials/foams, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 135 (2019) 649–673.
[8] R. Ranjbarzadeh, A. Meghdadi Isfahani, M. Hojaji, Experimental investigation of
heat transfer and friction coefficient of the water/graphene oxide nanofluid in
a pipe containing twisted tape inserts under air cross-flow, Exp. Heat Transfer
31 (5) (2018) 373–390.
[9] K.V. Wong, O. De Leon, Applications of nanofluids: current and future, Adv.
Mech. Eng. 2 (2010), 519659.
[10] M.R. Safaei, R. Ranjbarzadeh, A. Hajizadeh, M. Bahiraei, M. Afrand, A.
Karimipour, Effects of cobalt ferrite coated with silica nanocomposite on the
thermal conductivity of an antifreeze: New nanofluid for refrigeration
condensers, Int. J. Refrig. 102 (2019) 86–95.
[11] A.D. Zadeh, D. Toghraie, Experimental investigation for developing a new
model for the dynamic viscosity of silver/ethylene glycol nanofluid at different
temperatures and solid volume fractions, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 131 (2)
(2018) 1449–1461.
[12] M. Hemmat Esfe, S. Saedodin, S. Wongwises, D. Toghraie, An experimental
study on the effect of diameter on thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity
of Fe/water nanofluids, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 119 (3) (2015) 1817–1824.
[13] T. Javed, Z. Mehmood, M.A. Siddiqui, I. Pop, Study of heat transfer in water-Cu
nanofluid saturated porous medium through two entrapped trapezoidal
cavities under the influence of magnetic field, J. Mol. Liq. 240 (2017) 402–411.
[14] B. Ruhani, P. Barnoon, D. Toghraie, Statistical investigation for developing a
new model for rheological behavior of Silica–ethylene glycol/Water hybrid
Newtonian nanofluid using experimental data, Phys. A 525 (2019) 616–627.
[15] M. Hemmat Esfe, W.-M. Yan, M. Afrand, M. Sarraf, D. Toghraie, M. Dahari,
Estimation of thermal conductivity of Al2O3/water (40%)–ethylene glycol
(60%) by artificial neural network and correlation using experimental data, Int.
Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 74 (2016) 125–128.
[16] M. Hemmat Esfe, M. Afrand, S. Gharehkhani, H. Rostamian, D. Toghraie, M.
Dahari, An experimental study on viscosity of alumina-engine oil: Effects of
temperature and nanoparticles concentration, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transfer 76 (2016) 202–208.
[17] M. Afrand, D. Toghraie, N. Sina, Experimental study on thermal conductivity of
water-based Fe3O4 nanofluid: Development of a new correlation and modeled
by artificial neural network, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 75 (2016) 262–
269.
[18] M. Hemmat Esfe, M.R. Hassani Ahangar, M. Rejvani, D. Toghraie, M.H.
Hajmohammad, Designing an artificial neural network to predict dynamic
viscosity of aqueous nanofluid of TiO2 using experimental data, Int. Commun.
Heat Mass Transfer 75 (2016) 192–196.
[19] M. Heydari, D. Toghraie, O.A. Akbari, The effect of semi-attached and offset
mid-truncated ribs and Water/TiO2 nanofluid on flow and heat transfer
properties in a triangular microchannel, Therm. Sci. Eng. Progress 2 (2017)
140–150.
[20] M. Keyvani, M. Afrand, D. Toghraie, M. Reiszadeh, An experimental study on
the thermal conductivity of cerium oxide/ethylene glycol nanofluid:
developing a new correlation, J. Mol. Liq. 266 (2018) 211–217.
[21] A.H. Saeedi, M. Akbari, D. Toghraie, An experimental study on rheological
behavior of a nanofluid containing oxide nanoparticle and proposing a new
correlation, Physica E 99 (2018) 285–293.
[22] A. Moradi, D. Toghraie, A.H.M. Isfahani, A. Hosseinian, An experimental study
on MWCNT–water nanofluids flow and heat transfer in double-pipe heat
exchanger using porous media, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 137 (5) (2019) 1797–
1807.
[23] M. Bahiraei, S. Heshmatian, Graphene family nanofluids: A critical review and
future research directions, Energy Convers. Manage. 196 (2019) 1222–1256.
[24] M.A. Esfahani, D. Toghraie, Experimental investigation for developing a new
model for the thermal conductivity of silica/water-ethylene glycol (40%–60%)
nanofluid at different temperatures and solid volume fractions, J. Mol. Liq. 232
(2017) 105–112.
[25] A. Kakavandi, M. Akbari, Experimental investigation of thermal conductivity of
nanofluids containing of hybrid nanoparticles suspended in binary base fluids
and propose a new correlation, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 124 (2018) 742–751.
[26] R. Ranjbarzadeh, A. Moradikazerouni, R. Bakhtiari, A. Asadi, M. Afrand, An
experimental study on stability and thermal conductivity of water/silica
nanofluid: Eco-friendly production of nanoparticles, J. Cleaner Prod. 206
(2019) 1089–1100.
[27] R. Ranjbarzadeh, A. Karimipour, M. Afrand, A.H.M. Isfahani, A. Shirneshan,
Empirical analysis of heat transfer and friction factor of water/graphene oxide
12 R. Taherialekouhi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145 (2019) 118751
nanofluid flow in turbulent regime through an isothermal pipe, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 126 (2017) 538–547.
[28] R. Ranjbarzadeh, A.M. Isfahani, M. Afrand, A. Karimipour, M. Hojaji, An
experimental study on heat transfer and pressure drop of water/graphene
oxide nanofluid in a copper tube under air cross-flow: Applicable as a heat
exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 125 (2017) 69–79.
[29] B. Ruhani, D. Toghraie, M. Hekmatifar, M. Hadian, Statistical investigation for
developing a new model for rheological behavior of ZnO–Ag (50%–50%)/Water
hybrid Newtonian nanofluid using experimental data, Phys. A 525 (2019) 741–
751.
[30] M. Hemmat Esfe, M. Afrand, W.-M. Yan, H. Yarmand, D. Toghraie, M. Dahari,
Effects of temperature and concentration on rheological behavior of MWCNTs/
SiO2(20–80)-SAE40 hybrid nano-lubricant, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer
76 (2016) 133–138.
[31] M. Zadkhast, D. Toghraie, A. Karimipour, Developing a new correlation to
estimate the thermal conductivity of MWCNT-CuO/water hybrid nanofluid via
an experimental investigation, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 129 (2) (2017) 859–
867.
[32] M. Hemmat Esfe, M. Afrand, S.H. Rostamian, D. Toghraie, Examination of
rheological behavior of MWCNTs/ZnO-SAE40 hybrid nano-lubricants under
various temperatures and solid volume fractions, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 80
(2017) 384–390.
[33] A. Afshari, M. Akbari, D. Toghraie, M.E. Yazdi, Experimental investigation of
rheological behavior of the hybrid nanofluid of MWCNT–alumina/water
(80%)–ethylene-glycol (20%), J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 132 (2) (2018) 1001–
1015.
[34] A. Akhgar, D. Toghraie, An experimental study on the stability and thermal
conductivity of water-ethylene glycol/TiO2-MWCNTs hybrid nanofluid:
Developing a new correlation, Powder Technol. 338 (2018) 806–818.
[35] A. Parsian, M. Akbari, New experimental correlation for the thermal
conductivity of ethylene glycol containing Al2O3–Cu hybrid nanoparticles, J.
Therm. Anal. Calorim. 131 (2) (2018) 1605–1613.
[36] A. Shahsavar, Free convection heat transfer and entropy generation analysis of
water-Fe3O4/CNT hybrid nanofluid in a concentric annulus, Int. J. Numer.
Meth. Heat Fluid Flow 29 (3) (2019) 915–934.
[37] M. Afrand, D. Toghraie, B. Ruhani, Effects of temperature and nanoparticles
concentration on rheological behavior of Fe3O4–Ag/EG hybrid nanofluid: An
experimental study, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 77 (2016) 38–44.
[38] H. Arasteh, R. Mashayekhi, D. Toghraie, A. Karimipour, M. Bahiraei, A. Rahbari,
Optimal arrangements of a heat sink partially filled with multilayered porous
media employing hybrid nanofluid, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 137 (3) (2019)
1045–1058.
[39] A.A.A.A. Al-Rashed, R. Ranjbarzadeh, S. Aghakhani, M. Soltanimehr, M. Afrand,
T.K. Nguyen, Entropy generation of boehmite alumina nanofluid flow through
a minichannel heat exchanger considering nanoparticle shape effect, Phys. A
521 (2019) 724–736.
[40] S. Akilu, A.T. Baheta, K. Sharma, Experimental measurements of thermal
conductivity and viscosity of ethylene glycol-based hybrid nanofluid with
TiO2-CuO/C inclusions, J. Mol. Liq. 246 (2017) 396–405.
[41] K.Y. Leong, I. Razali, K.K. Ahmad, H.C. Ong, M.J. Ghazali, M.R.A. Rahman,
Thermal conductivity of an ethylene glycol/water-based nanofluid with
copper-titanium dioxide nanoparticles: an experimental approach, Int.
Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 90 (2018) 23–28.
[42] A.A. Hussien, M.Z. Abdullah, N.M. Yusop, A.-N. Moh’d A, M.A. Atieh, M. Mehrali,
Experiment on forced convective heat transfer enhancement using MWCNTs/
GNPs hybrid nanofluid and mini-tube, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 115 (2017)
1121–1131.
[43] R. Ranjbarzadeh, A. Akhgar, S. Musivand, M. Afrand, Effects of graphene
oxidesilicon oxide hybrid nanomaterials on rheological behavior of water at
various time durations and temperatures: Synthesis, preparation and stability,
Powder Technol. 335 (2018) 375–387.
[44] R.L. Hamilton, O. Crosser, Thermal conductivity of heterogeneous two-
component systems, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1 (3) (1962) 187–191.
[45] S.Y. Lu, H.C. Lin, Effective conductivity of composites containing aligned
spheroidal inclusions of finite conductivity, J. Appl. Phys. 79 (9) (1996) 6761–
6769.
[46] J.C. Maxwell, A treatise on electricity and magnetism, Clarendon, Oxford 314
(1881) 1873.
[47] A. Rasheed, M. Khalid, W. Rashmi, T. Gupta, A. Chan, Graphene based
nanofluids and nanolubricants–review of recent developments, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 63 (2016) 346–362.
[48] T. Kurma, K.V. Wong, Transport Properties of Alumina Nanofluids, in:
Nanotechnology and Energy, Pan Stanford, 2017, pp. 27–47.
[49] R.G. Newton, Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles, Springer Science &
Business Media, 2013.
[50] A. Handbook-Fundamentals, American society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers, 2009.
[51] M. Chopkar, S. Sudarshan, P. Das, I. Manna, Effect of particle size on thermal
conductivity of nanofluid, Metall. Materi. Trans. A 39 (7) (2008) 1535–1542.
[52] C. Chon, K. Kihm, Thermal conductivity enhancement of nanofluids by
Brownian motion, Transactions-American Society of Mechanical Engineers, J.
Heat Transfer 127 (8) (2005) 810.
[53] J. Koo, C. Kleinstreuer, Impact analysis of nanoparticle motion mechanisms on
the thermal conductivity of nanofluids, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 32
(9) (2005) 1111–1118.
[54] J. Philip, P. Shima, B. Raj, Evidence for enhanced thermal conduction through
percolating structures in nanofluids, Nanotechnology 19 (30) (2008), 305706.
[55] S. Kondaraju, E. Jin, J.S. Lee, Direct numerical simulation of thermal
conductivity of nanofluids: the effect of temperature two-way coupling and
coagulation of particles, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 53 (5–6) (2010) 862–869.
[56] E.E.S. Michaelides, Nanofluidics, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014.
[57] S. Choi, Z. Zhang, W. Yu, F. Lockwood, E. Grulke, Anomalous thermal
conductivity enhancement in nanotube suspensions, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79 (14)
(2001) 2252–2254.
[58] P. Keblinski, S. Phillpot, S. Choi, J. Eastman, Mechanisms of heat flow in
suspensions of nano-sized particles (nanofluids), Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 45
(4) (2002) 855–863.
[59] W. Yu, S. Choi, The role of interfacial layers in the enhanced thermal
conductivity of nanofluids: a renovated Hamilton-Crosser model, J.
Nanopart. Res. 6 (4) (2004) 355–361.
[60] K. Khanafer, K. Vafai, A critical synthesis of thermophysical characteristics of
nanofluids, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 54 (19–20) (2011) 4410–4428.
[61] N.N. Esfahani, D. Toghraie, M. Afrand, A new correlation for predicting the
thermal conductivity of ZnO–Ag (50%–50%)/water hybrid nanofluid: An
experimental study, Powder Technol. 323 (2018) 367–373.
[62] S. Iranmanesh, M. Mehrali, E. Sadeghinezhad, B.C. Ang, H.C. Ong, A.
Esmaeilzadeh, Evaluation of viscosity and thermal conductivity of graphene
nanoplatelets nanofluids through a combined experimental–statistical
approach using respond surface methodology method, Int. Commun. Heat
Mass Transfer 79 (2016) 74–80.
[63] M.H. Esfe, S. Saedodin, A. Asadi, A. Karimipour, Thermal conductivity and
viscosity of Mg (OH) 2-ethylene glycol nanofluids, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 120
(2) (2015) 1145–1149.
[64] R. Sadri, M. Hosseini, S.N. Kazi, S. Bagheri, A.H. Abdelrazek, G. Ahmadi, N. Zubir,
R. Ahmad, N.I.Z. Abidin, A facile, bio-based, novel approach for synthesis of
covalently functionalized graphene nanoplatelet nano-coolants toward
improved thermo-physical and heat transfer properties, J. Colloid Interface
Sci. 509 (2018) 140–152.
[65] M.K. Sinha, R. Madarkar, S. Ghosh, P.V. Rao, Application of eco-friendly
nanofluids during grinding of Inconel 718 through small quantity lubrication,
J. Cleaner Prod. 141 (2017) 1359–1375.
[66] K.A. Hamid, W.H. Azmi, M.F. Nabil, R. Mamat, K.V. Sharma, Experimental
investigation of thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity on nanoparticle
mixture ratios of TiO2-SiO2 nanofluids, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 116 (2018)
1143–1152.
[67] G.M. Moldoveanu, G. Huminic, A.A. Minea, A. Huminic, Experimental study on
thermal conductivity of stabilized Al2O3 and SiO2 nanofluids and their hybrid,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 127 (2018) 450–457.
[68] A. Asadi, M. Asadi, A. Rezaniakolaei, L.A. Rosendahl, M. Afrand, S. Wongwises,
Heat transfer efficiency of Al2O3-MWCNT/thermal oil hybrid nanofluid as a
cooling fluid in thermal and energy management applications: An experimental
and theoretical investigation, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 117 (2018) 474–486.
[69] M. Hossein Karimi Darvanjooghi, M. Nasr Esfahany, Experimental
investigation of the effect of nanoparticle size on thermal conductivity of in-
situ prepared silica–ethanol nanofluid, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 77
(2016) 148–154.