Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77

DOI 10.1007/s10765-017-2218-6

Investigation on Stability and Optical Properties

of Titanium Dioxide and Aluminum Oxide Water-Based
Nanofluids

Kin Yuen Leong1 · Z. A. Najwa1 ·

K. Z. Ku Ahmad1 · Hwai Chyuan Ong2

Received: 26 October 2016 / Accepted: 13 March 2017 / Published online: 21 March 2017
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract Water is regarded as a poor absorber of solar energy. This affects the
efficiency of solar thermal systems. The addition of nanoparticles to heat transfer
fluids used in solar thermal systems can enhance their optical properties. These new-
generation heat transfer fluids are known as nanofluids. The present study investigates
the stability and optical properties of three nanofluids, including aluminum oxide
(13 nm and <50 nm) and titanium dioxide (21 nm) nanofluids. The stability of the
nanofluids was observed through a photo-capturing method and zeta potential mea-
surements. Ultraviolet–visible (UV–Vis) spectrophotometer was used to measure the
absorbance and transmittance of the prepared nanofluids. The effect of factors such as
type of particle, type of surfactant, and pH of the solution on the optical properties of
the nanofluids was also investigated. We found that the titanium dioxide nanofluid had
better optical properties but lower stability compared to aluminum oxide nanofluids.

Keywords Aluminum oxide · Nanofluids · Optical properties · Stability · Surfactant ·

Titanium dioxide

1 Introduction

The amount of fossil-based energy used across the globe depends on the development
of the world’s industry and economy. In the last few decades, the depletion of fossil-

B Kin Yuen Leong

leongkinyuen@gmail.com,kinyuen@upnm.edu.my

1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia, Kem Sungai

Besi, 57000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

123
77 Page 2 of 15 Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77

based energy has intensified owing to the significant increase of the world’s energy
consumption. Optimization of energy consumption and the use of renewable energy are
two possible approaches that can be used to address this problem. Renewable energy
such as solar energy can be captured by using solar thermal collectors. Conventional
heat transfer fluids such as water are commonly used as solar absorbers in solar thermal
energy applications. However, Otanicar et al. [1] revealed that water is a weak solar
absorber and can only absorb 13 % of the solar energy. Leong et al. [2] have suggested
that the optical properties of heat transfer fluids can be augmented by the addition of
nanoparticles. The optical properties are dependent on the type, shape, and size of the
particle and the number of particles added to the base fluid. These new-generation
heat transfer fluids are known as nanofluids.
A nanofluid is defined as a colloidal suspension with fine nanoparticles [3]. The size
of the nanoparticles ranges from 1 nm to 100 nm in diameter. A substantial amount
of experimental [4–6] and theoretical research [7–10] has been done in this area.
These nanoparticle suspensions are stable, and much less settling is observed under
static condition compared with that of micron-sized particle suspensions. Ghadimi
et al. [11] suggested that physical or chemical treatments such as applying an exter-
nal force to break the nanoparticle cluster, particle surface modification, or addition
of surfactant are required to produce homogenous nanofluids. For instance, Ghadimi
and Metselaar [12] studied the effect of surfactant and ultrasonication on the stabil-
ity of titania nanofluids. They found that the stability of the samples improved with
the addition of surfactant [sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)]. However, it was limited to
short-term application and further investigation is required for long-term application.
Anushree and Philip [13] used several techniques and instruments such as zeta poten-
tial measurements, observation, ultraviolet–visible (UV–Vis) spectroscopy, dynamic
light scattering, and phase contrast microscopic to investigate the stability of alpha-
aluminum oxide (α -Al2 O3 ), titanium dioxide (TiO2 ), and gamma-aluminum oxide
(γ -Al2 O3 ) water-based nanofluids. The study found that the stability of γ -Al2 O3
water-based nanofluids was time independent. The recorded zeta potential value over
120 h was ∼45.8 ± 5 mV. Khairul et al. [14] used sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate
(SDBS) as a surfactant to stabilize their metal oxide nanofluids. They concluded that
reduction of the SDBS surfactant degraded the stability of the nanofluids. Further-
more, samples with a higher nanoparticle concentration exhibited poor stability. The
stability of nanofluids is dependent on the attractive and repulsive force between the
nanoparticles. Kim et al. [15] suggested that attractive interaction forces between the
nanoparticles depend on the particle volume concentration. However, the repulsive
forces strongly depend on the shape of the nanoparticles. The type of nanofluid studied
was a water-based boehmite alumina nanofluid. Recently, Babita et al. [16] published
a review of the synthesis of nanofluids and evaluation of their stability. Techniques
used to enhance the stability of nanofluids and the evaluation methods are provided in
their article.
Most researchers have found that nanofluids exhibit improved thermal conductiv-
ity compared with conventional fluids [17–19]. However, significant improvement in
thermal conductivity is not adequate for the improvement of the efficiency of nanoflu-
ids used in solar thermal systems. The optical properties of nanofluids should also
be enhanced. Optical properties include the transmittance, absorbance, and extinction

123
Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77 Page 3 of 15 77

coefficient. Transmittance measures the amount of light that passes through the sub-
stance, whereas absorbance refers to the amount of light absorbed by the substance.
The extinction coefficient is defined as an imaginary component of complex refractive
index. It can be calculated based on the Beer–Lambert law, as shown in Eq. 1:
 
1
In = δσext (1)
Tr

where δ is the thickness (cm) of the substance, Tr is the transmittance value (%), and
σext is the extinction coefficient.
These three parameters are co-related. A higher extinction coefficient indicates
that a large amount of light is being absorbed and the transmittance is reduced. The
transmittance and absorbance are sufficient to represent the optical characteristic of
any substance.
The optical properties of nanofluids have been investigated extensively. The
enhanced optical properties of nanofluids have attracted the attention of researchers.
Said et al. [20] experimentally examined the optical characteristics of aluminum
oxide and titanium dioxide nanofluids. Several classical models, namely the Rayleigh,
Maxwell–Garnett, and Beer–Lambert models, were used for the analytical analysis.
Overall, the study implied that TiO2 nanofluids exhibit a higher extinction coefficient
and refractive index compared with Al2 O3 nanofluids tested in the visible light region
for all particles concentration. Furthermore, Sajid et al. [21] investigated the relation-
ship between the aggregation of the particles and the optical properties of Al2 O3 /water
nanofluids. They found that the extinction coefficient of the tested nanofluids decreased
remarkably with respect to time within the visible-to-near-infrared (IR) region. In their
study, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was used to measure the size and for-
mation of the particle cluster and a Zetasizer was used to examine the size of aggregates
and the zeta potential. Finally, UV–Vis spectroscopy was used to obtain the nanofluids
optical properties with respect to time. Rativa and Gomez–Malagon [22] also studied
the solar radiation absorption of nanofluids containing metallic nanoellipsoids. The
study revealed that the solar-weighted absorption coefficient was enhanced approxi-
mately 54 % and 86 % for gold and silver nanoellipsoids, respectively, compared with
that of spherical nanoparticles made from the same materials. The authors concluded
that nanofluids containing gold and silver nanoellipsoids were suitable for use in solar
thermal systems such as direct absorption solar collectors. Gorji et al. [23] carried out
an experiment to determine the optical properties of deionized water containing func-
tionalized carbon nanotubes. The functionalization process was done to overcome the
stability issue of carbon nanotubes. It is known that carbon nanotubes are hydropho-
bic in nature and have a high tendency to agglomerate. The experiment demonstrated
that the addition of carbon nanotubes enhanced the optical properties of the base fluid.
However, the optical properties (extinction coefficient) tended to decrease with respect
to temperature.
Recently, the thermo-optical properties of copper oxide (CuO) nanofluids were
investigated by Karami et al. [24]. These authors revealed that nanofluids have a higher
absorption coefficient compared with the base fluid at a wavelength range from 200 nm
to 2500 nm. Furthermore, the authors reported that the energy absorbed by nanofluids

123
77 Page 4 of 15 Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77

containing 0.01 vol% of CuO nanoparticles was four times higher than that by the base
fluid. Menbari and Alemrajabi [25] performed analytical analysis and experiments
to examine the optical properties of aluminum oxide–copper oxide (Al2 O3 –CuO)
nanofluids, which is also known as a binary (hybrid) nanofluid. Water was one of
the base fluids used in their study. It was found that the extinction coefficient of the
binary nanoparticles dispersed in water was greater than if the binary nanoparticles
were added to other types of base fluids.
In the present study, we investigated the stability and optical properties of water-
based nanofluids. The effect of particle types, pH, and surfactants on the stability and
optical properties of the nanofluids was investigated. The present study fills a gap of
knowledge in this field and provides better understanding of the optical properties of
nanofluids.

2 Methodology

2.1 Materials and Preparation of Nanofluids

Three types of nanoparticles available from Sigma-Aldrich, titanium dioxide (TiO2 ,

21 nm), and aluminum oxide (Al2 O3 , 13 nm and <50 nm), were used in this research.
Distilled water was used as the base fluid of the nanofluids. The nanofluid samples were
prepared through a two-step method. The nanoparticles were dispersed into the base
fluid by using a Q700 sonicator (QSonica). The sonication process took place at an
amplitude of 10 % for a period of 30 min. The particle volume percentage chosen in this
study was 0.01 vol%. The samples were also prepared at 3 different pH values (pH 3,
5, and 9) without the addition of a surfactant. The pH was adjusted by adding a small
amount of acetic acid or ammonia hydroxide. A digital pH meter (Mettler Toledo)
was used to test the pH of the samples. Three types of surfactants, namely gum arabic
(GA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), and sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS),
were used in this study. The surfactant-to-nanoparticles ratio was 2:1. Equation 2 was
used to calculate the volume percentage of the particles in the samples:

W p /ρ p
Volume concentration (vol%) =     (2)
W p /ρ p + Wb f /ρb f

where w is the mass (kg) and ρ (kg · m−3 ) is the density. The subscripts p and bf
are the particle and base fluid, respectively. The density of the titanium dioxide and
aluminum oxide is 4260 kg · m−3 [26] and 3950 kg · m−3 [27], respectively.

2.2 Stability of the Nanofluids

The stability of nanofluid was investigated using two methods, namely the observation
method (photo-capturing method) and zeta potential measurements. Observation is the
simplest method, in which the prepared nanofluids were placed in a measuring cylinder
and the stability of the nanofluids in terms of particle sedimentation or precipitation

123
Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77 Page 5 of 15 77

can be examined. Photographs of all the samples were captured and compared at one-
week intervals: 1st week, 2nd week, 3rd week, and 4th week after sonication. Only
photographs taken in the 4th week after the sonication process are shown in the present
study.
Zetasizer Nano (Malvern Nano Z) was used to find the zeta potential values for
all the samples. The zeta potential represents the electrostatic repulsion between the
nanoparticles. When the absolute zeta potential is high, the repulsive forces are high
and lead to good stability of the suspension (nanofluids). In other words, the absolute
zeta potential indicates whether the particles in the liquid stick (cluster) together. The
particles are well dispersed if the absolute zeta potential is high. A zeta potential value
that is closer to zero indicates that the nanoparticles stick together and are not dispersed
well.

2.3 Optical Properties of the Nanofluids

The absorbance and transmittance were measured by using a UV–Vis spectrophotome-

ter (UV-1800 Shimadzu). The solar spectrum consisted of ultraviolet (290–380 nm),
visible (380–780 nm), and infrared (780–2500 nm). It has been reported that most of
the energy (98 %) lies in the visible and infrared region [28]. Thus, only the wave-
length region between 400 nm and 1100 nm was considered in the present study. The
measurements were taken at a constant temperature of 25 ◦ C. The effect of nanopar-
ticles, pH, and type of surfactants on the optical properties was investigated. This
UV-Vis spectrophotometer consisted of 2 cuvettes as it used a double-beam photo-
metric system. One acted as a reference (filled with base fluid), and another cuvette
was filled with the sample (nanofluid). Baseline correction was performed prior to the
measurement to eliminate noise and improve the accuracy of the measurement.

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Stability of the Nanofluids

Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the absolute zeta potential of titanium dioxide (21 nm) nanoflu-
ids, aluminum oxide (13 nm) nanofluids, and aluminum oxide (<50 nm) nanofluids,

Table 1 Absolute zeta potential

Samples Absolute zeta potential (mV)
of titanium dioxide nanofluids
prepared under various Without surfactant 22.5
conditions
PVP 13.8
GA 23.4
SDBS 49.1
pH 3 14.5
pH 5 38.9
pH 9 0.0182

123
77 Page 6 of 15 Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77

Table 2 Absolute zeta potential

Samples Absolute zeta potential (mV)
of aluminum oxide (13 nm)
nanofluids prepared under Without surfactant 58.8
various conditions
PVP 0.0103
GA 34.3
SDBS 56.8
pH 3 39.0
pH 5 0.0325
pH 9 22.3

Table 3 Absolute zeta potential

Samples Absolute zeta potential (mV)
of aluminum oxide (<50nm)
nanofluids prepared under Without surfactant 0.0173
conditions
PVP 1.78
GA 0.0479
SDBS 47.0
pH 3 0.0150
pH 5 47.4
pH 9 21.1

respectively, at various conditions. In general, Vandsburger [29] stated that an absolute

zeta potential above 45 mV indicates good suspension stability and possible settling.
An absolute zeta potential value above 30 mV represents moderate stability. A sus-
pension with an absolute zeta potential value above 15 mV is regarded to have some
stability and some settling. Suspensions with poor stability usually have values closer
to zero. The repulsive forces in these suspensions are very weak; consequently, the
nanoparticles tend to stick together (agglomeration). The titanium dioxide nanofluids
containing SDBS was the most stable among the tested samples (Table 1). Its absolute
zeta potential value was approximately 49.1 mV. Wu et al. [30] stated that SDBS is
an anionic surfactant. When this surfactant is added to the base fluid, it is adsorbed
on the TiO2 surfaces. This changes the surface properties and reduces the interfacial
free energy. Meanwhile, the nanoparticles are prevented from getting closer to each
other and a steric effect is formed. The authors also highlighted that the amount of
surfactant added to base fluid must be precisely enough to coat the nanoparticles. If
too much surfactant is added, it may lead to saturated adsorption, which results in
variation of the stability of the nanofluids. However, if not enough surfactant is added,
the nanoparticles start to aggregate, which is attributed to the gravitational force. Thus,
an optimum amount of surfactant is required to obtain the best stability. In the present
study, the amount of SDBS added to the TiO2 nanofluids is the optimum value needed
to produce the highest zeta potential value. It is followed by TiO2 nanofluids at pH 5
(38.9 mV). The third most stable sample contained GA, which had an absolute zeta
potential of 23.4 mV. The sample without any surfactant or pH modification exhib-
ited a slightly lower absolute zeta potential of 22.5 mV. An absolute zeta potential of

123
Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77 Page 7 of 15 77

14.5 mV was observed for the sample at pH 3, followed by sample containing PVP
surfactant (13.8 mV). The most unstable sample was the nanofluid at pH 9, which
had a zeta potential value close to zero (0.0182 mV). The nanoparticles in this sample
are clustered with each another. At zero zeta potential, the surface charge density is
equivalent to the charge density where there is the start point of the diffuse layer and
the charge density is zero [11].
Table 2 illustrates the absolute zeta potential values of aluminum oxide (13 nm)
nanofluids prepared under different conditions. Surprisingly, the sample without pH
modification and without surfactant is the most stable sample (58.8 mV) followed by
the samples containing SDBS (56.8 mV) and the sample at pH 3 (39.0 mV). Zeta
potential values of 34.3 mV and 22.3 mV were recorded for samples containing GA
and the sample at pH 9, respectively. The sample at pH 5 and the sample containing
PVP surfactant were the most unstable samples with zeta potential values of 0.0325
mV and 0.0103 mV, respectively.
Table 3 shows the zeta potential values of aluminum oxide (<50 nm) nanofluids.
Among the tested samples, only three samples were regarded as stable: the nanofluid
at pH 5 (47.4 mV), the nanofluid containing SDBS (47 mV), and the nanofluid at pH
9 (21.1 mV). The other samples exhibited absolute zeta potential values close to zero,
which were regarded as unstable samples.
According to Tables 1, 2, and 3, the addition of surfactant and pH modification
of the samples affect the electrostatic repulsive forces between the nanoparticles.
Selection of the appropriate surfactant or pH is vital to produce an excellent and stable
nanofluid. The absolute zeta potential of the nanofluids was measured on the same day
that they were prepared. Photo-capturing and observation were performed to examine
the stability of the nanofluids over a period of 4 weeks.
Figure 1a–g shows the condition of the nanofluids 4 weeks after the ultrasonication
process. The arrow sign in Fig. 1a–g indicates the height of the precipitate present in the
measuring cylinder containing the nanofluid. The study found that titanium dioxide
nanofluids have poor stability compared with the aluminum oxide nanofluids. For
non-surfactant samples, there was obvious nanoparticle sedimentation in the titanium
dioxide nanofluids compared with that in the aluminum oxide nanofluids (Fig. 1a).
Although the aluminum oxide (<50 nm) nanofluid had a low absolute zeta potential,
no obvious nanoparticles sedimentation was observed at the bottom of the measuring
cylinder after 4 weeks. This happened because of the lower density of aluminum oxide
(3950 kg·m−3 ) compared with that of titanium dioxide (4260 kg·m−3 ). The aluminum
oxide (<50 nm) nanoparticle clusters were well dispersed in the base fluid without
falling to the bottom of the cylinder.
Similar to the non-surfactant samples, sedimentation of the nanoparticles was also
observed in the titanium dioxide nanofluids containing SDBS (Fig. 1b). The sedimen-
tation of the nanoparticles was not as severe compared with the non-surfactant titanium
dioxide nanofluids. Although this sample initially had a high absolute zeta potential,
its repulsive force could not be sustained for long periods. Particle sedimentation
was also present for the titanium dioxide nanofluid containing gum arabic (Fig. 1c).
Conversely, there was no obvious nanoparticle sedimentation for aluminum oxide
nanofluids regardless of the size of the nanoparticle. The aluminum oxide (<50 nm)
nanofluid containing GA also had similar characteristics as the non-surfactant sample

123
77 Page 8 of 15 Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77

Fig. 1 The condition of the

nanofluids (0.01 vol% of
nanoparticle) 4 weeks after
preparation. (a) Without
surfactant. (b) Addition of
SDBS. (c) Addition of GA. (d)
Addition of PVP. (e) Base fluid
of pH 3. (f) Base fluid of pH 5.
(g) Base fluid of pH 9

123
Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77 Page 9 of 15 77

3.50
TiO2 Al2O3 (13nm) Al2O3 (<50nm)
3.00

2.50
Absorbance ,Abs

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Wavelength, nm
Fig. 2 Absorbance characteristic of titanium dioxide and aluminum oxide nanofluids

prepared with the same material, which was a low absolute zeta potential value but no
obvious particle sedimentation 4 weeks after its preparation.
Figure 1d implies that the titanium dioxide nanofluid containing PVP had the worst
stability. The titanium dioxide nanoparticles dropped to the bottom of the measuring
cylinder. Therefore, it can be concluded that the precipitation rate was faster for tita-
nium dioxide containing PVP surfactant. No substantial nanoparticle sedimentation
was observed for aluminum oxide nanofluids.
Figure 1e–g shows the condition of the nanofluids at pH 3, 5, and 9. The titanium
dioxide nanofluid had the worst stability at pH 9. Titanium dioxide nanofluids at
pH 3 and 5 had better stability compared with pH 9 as the observed nanoparticle
sedimentation was not as severe as that observed at pH 9. There was no remarkable
particle sedimentation detected for aluminum oxide nanofluids, even though some of
the samples initially had low absolute zeta potential values. This was attributed to the
lower density of aluminum oxide itself. Aluminum oxide nanoparticles clusters were
well dispersed in the suspension.

3.2 Optical Properties of Nanofluids

3.2.1 Absorbance Characteristic of the Nanofluids

The absorbance spectra of titanium dioxide and aluminum oxide nanofluids are shown
in Fig. 2.
Absorbance represents the ability of a medium to absorb radiation. Based on Fig. 2, all
the tested nanofluids showed the same trend (decreasing) and exhibited strong solar
radiation absorption at shorter wavelength. Figure 2 also indicates that the titanium
dioxide nanofluid had better absorbance compared with aluminum oxide nanofluids
at a wavelength up to 700 nm. Beyond this wavelength, its absorbance capacity was
approximately the same or slightly lower than that of the aluminum oxide (< 50 nm)

123
77 Page 10 of 15 Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77

3.50
PVP (TiO2)
GA (TiO2)
3.00 SDBS (TiO2)
PVP (Al2O3,13nm)
2.50 GA (Al2O3,13nm)
SDBS (Al2O3,13nm)
Absorbance ,Abs

2.00 PVP (Al2O3 <50nm)

GA (Al2O3 <50nm)
SDBS (Al203 <50nm)
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Wavelength, nm
Fig. 3 The effect of surfactants on the absorbance characteristic of titanium dioxide and aluminum oxide
nanofluids

nanofluid. These findings, especially at the shorter wavelength, were in line with the
finding reported by Said et al. [20]. They concluded that titanium dioxide nanofluids
have more promising optical properties compared with aluminum oxide nanofluids.
Furthermore, aluminum oxide (<50 nm) nanofluids had better absorbance compared
with aluminum oxide (13 nm) nanofluids, as shown in Fig. 2. This indicated that larger
nanoparticles led to better absorbance capability of the nanofluids. Theoretically, big-
ger nanoparticles should yield better optical properties (higher extinction coefficient)
[31]. When bigger nanoparticles are used, more of the nanoparticle area is exposed to
the light beam, and more energy can eventually be absorbed. Furthermore, titanium
oxide nanofluids containing surfactant also showed good absorbance compared with
aluminum oxide nanofluids (from 400 nm to 550 nm), as shown in Fig. 3.
The effect of the surfactant on the titanium dioxide nanofluids was noticeable across
the entire tested wavelength. Titanium dioxide nanofluids containing GA gave the high-
est value of absorbance for all wavelengths measured. Adam et al. [32] reported that
the absorbance increases with the amount of gum arabic added to water owing to the
increased assembly of the molecules. Thus, when nanoparticles were added into the
base fluid in the present study, the absorbance was substantially enhanced. This was
followed by titanium dioxide nanofluids containing SDBS, and last, PVP. However,
the difference was minimal at longer wavelengths. The aluminum oxide (<50 nm)
nanofluids containing GA also exhibited higher absorbance followed by SDBS and
PVP (400 nm to 1100 nm). However, the nanofluids prepared using the smaller alu-
minum oxide (13 nm) did not show any significant effect when different types of
surfactants were added. Their absorbance characteristic was similar irrespective of the
type of surfactant added.

123
Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77 Page 11 of 15 77

pH3 (TiO2) pH5 (TiO2) pH9 (TiO2)

pH3 (Al2O3, 13nm) pH5 (Al2O3, 13nm) pH9 (Al2O3, 13nm)
pH3 (Al2O3, <50nm) pH5 (Al2O3, <50nm) pH9 (Al2O3, <50nm)

3.50

3.00

2.50
Absorbance ,Abs

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Wavelength, nm
Fig. 4 The effect of pH on the absorbance characteristic of titanium dioxide and aluminum oxide nanofluids

The effect of pH on the absorbance behavior of the nanofluids is demonstrated in

Fig. 4. The pH values considered in the present study were 3, 5, and 9. When the pH
of a solution is adjusted, it will chemically modify the surface of the nanoparticles and
eventually affect the nanoparticle clusters.
The titanium dioxide nanofluid had the highest absorbance at pH 5. At pH 3 and 9,
the absorbance values of the nanofluids were similar. The effect of pH on nanofluids
containing aluminum oxide was not as strong as on the titanium dioxide nanofluids.
For instance, their absorbance value of the aluminum oxide (<50 nm) nanofluids was
similar irrespective of the wavelength.

3.2.2 Transmittance Characteristic of the Nanofluids

Figures 5, 6, and 7 illustrate the transmittance characteristic of the samples without

surfactant, containing surfactant, and at different pH, respectively. The absorbance
and transmittance are related to each other. When the absorbance increases, the trans-
mittance decreases. Transmittance is defined as how much light is transmitted when
it travels through a substance. However, the sum of the absorbance and transmittance
is not necessarily equivalent to the total incident light (solar radiation). According to
Fig. 5, the transmittance of the three types of tested nanofluids increases with wave-
length. This agrees with the trend observed for the absorbance, which decreased with
increasing wavelength, as described in Sect. 3.2.1.
The transmittance of titanium dioxide nanofluids was the lowest between 400 nm
and 700 nm compared with the other two types of nanofluids that were tested. This
implies that titanium dioxide nanofluids have good optical properties, as not much light

123
77 Page 12 of 15 Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77

TiO2 Al2O3 (13nm) Al2O3 (<50nm)

100
90
80
70
Transmiance, %

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Wavelength, nm
Fig. 5 Transmittance characteristic of titanium dioxide and aluminum oxide nanofluids

was being transmitted. Their absorbance capacity was also the highest, as reported
in Sect. 3.2.1. Aluminum oxide (13 nm) nanofluids had poor optical properties as
it had the highest transmittance value from 400 nm to 1100 nm wavelength. Higher
transmittance was detected at longer wavelengths, which indicated that most of the
incident light was being wasted (transmitted). Only a small portion of the light was
absorbed by the nanofluids, as shown in Fig. 5. Nanofluids are said to have good
optical properties if they absorb a large portion of the incident light and have low
transmittance.
Figure 6 demonstrates the effect of surfactant on the transmittance behavior of the
nanofluids. The transmittance of aluminum oxide (13 nm) nanofluids was the highest
compared with the nanofluids prepared using the other types of nanoparticles. At
wavelengths above 800 nm, aluminum oxide (13 nm) nanofluids containing GA or
PVP have an almost identical transmittance, which were higher than the samples
containing SDBS.
A different scenario was observed for the titanium dioxide nanofluids. Titanium
dioxide nanofluids had the lowest transmittance at 400 nm to 550 nm for the three
types of surfactants. The transmittance of these samples started to increase, and at
approximately 800 nm, their transmittance was higher than that of the aluminum oxide
(<50 nm) nanofluids. Furthermore, the transmittance of aluminum oxide (<50 nm)
nanofluids containing PVP was the highest compared with the aluminum oxide
(<50 nm) nanofluids containing SDBS and GA.
Figure 7 shows the effect of pH (3, 5, and 9) on transmittance characteristics of
the titanium dioxide and aluminum oxide nanofluids. For the aluminum oxide (13 nm)
nanofluid, the sample at pH 5 exhibited a higher transmittance value compared with that
of pH 9 and 3. The present study also found that the titanium dioxide nanofluid at pH
3 had a higher transmittance than at pH 9 and 5. Meanwhile, the highest transmittance
value for aluminum oxide (<50 nm) was observed for sample at pH 5 followed by the
samples at pH 3 and 9. However their differences were very minor.

123
Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77 Page 13 of 15 77

PVP (TiO2) GA (TiO2) SDBS (TiO2)

PVP (Al2O3, 13nm) GA (Al2O3, 13nm) SDBS (Al2O3, 13nm)
PVP (Al2O3, <50nm) GA (Al2O3, <50nm) SDBS (Al2O3, <50nm)
100
90
80
70
Transmiance, %

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Wavelength, nm
Fig. 6 The effect of surfactants on the transmittance characteristics of titanium dioxide and aluminum
oxide nanofluids

pH3 (TiO2) pH5 (TiO2) pH9 (TiO2)

pH3 (Al2O3,13nm) pH5 (Al2O3,13nm) pH9 (Al2O3, 13nm)
pH3 (Al2O3, <50nm) pH5(Al2O3, <50nm) pH9 (Al2O3, <50nm)
100
90
80
70
Transmiance, %

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Wavelength, nm
Fig. 7 The effect of pH on the transmittance characteristic of titanium dioxide and aluminum oxide
nanofluids

4 Conclusions

In this study, the stability and optical properties of the titanium dioxide and aluminum
oxide nanofluids were investigated. The following conclusion can be drawn from the
present study:
(a) Aluminum oxide nanofluids have good long-term stability compared with titanium
dioxide nanofluids (4 weeks). For instance, the aluminum oxide (13 nm) nanofluid
containing SDBS had an absolute zeta potential of 56.8 mV, which was a very

123
77 Page 14 of 15 Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77

stable suspension with no obvious particles sedimentation. Titanium nanoparticles

tended to be deposited at the bottom of the cylinder owing to higher density of
titanium oxide nanoparticles compared with the aluminum oxide nanoparticles.
(b) The type of surfactant and pH affect the stability of the nanofluids. For instance,
titanium dioxide nanofluids containing SDBS had a very high absolute zeta poten-
tial value. However, at pH 9, its zeta potential value was close to zero.
(c) The titanium oxide nanofluids had better optical properties compared with the alu-
minum oxide nanofluids. However, they were less stable than the aluminum oxide
nanofluids. The non-surfactant titanium dioxide nanofluids had higher absorption
compared with aluminum oxide nanofluids at 400 nm to 700 nm.
(d) The optical properties of the nanofluids are dependent on the type and size of the
nanoparticles as well as the surfactant and pH of the suspension. For instance,
the absorbance of the titanium dioxide and aluminum oxide (<50 nm) nanofluids
was significantly affected by the type of surfactant added. However, only a minor
effect was observed for the aluminum oxide (13 nm) nanofluids.
(e) The aluminum oxide (13 nm) nanofluid at pH 5 had highest transmittance value
compared with samples at pH 3 and 9.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia,
and Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia for their financial support under FRGS/2/2014/TK01/UPNM/
03/1.

References
1. T.P. Otanicar, P.E. Phelan, J.S. Golden, Sol. Energy 83, 969 (2009)
2. K.Y. Leong, H.C. Ong, N.H. Amer, M.J. Norazrina, M.S. Risby, K.Z. Ku Ahmad, Renew. Sust. Energy
Rev. 53, 1092 (2016)
3. G. Puliti, S. Paolucci, M. Sen, ASME Appl. Mech. Rev. 64, 030803 (2012)
4. W.H. Azmi, N.A. Usri, R. Mamat, K.V. Sharma, M.M. Noor, App. Therm. Eng. 112, 707 (2017)
5. S.K. Verma, A.K. Tiwari, D.S. Chauhan, Energy Conv. Manag. 134, 103 (2017)
6. S.S. Meibodi, A. Kianifar, H. Niazmand, O. Mahian, S. Wongwises, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf.
65, 71 (2015)
7. F. Garoosi, L. Jahanshaloo, M.M. Rashidi, A. Badakhsh, M.E. Ali, Appl. Math. Comput. 254, 183
(2015)
8. N. Freidoonimehr, M.M. Rashidi, S. Mahmud, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 87, 136 (2015)
9. M.M. Rashidi, E. Momoniat, M. Ferdows, A. Basiriparsa, Math. Probl. Eng. 2014, 239082 (2014)
10. O.A. Bég, M.M. Rashidi, M. Akbari, A. Hosseini, J. Mech. Med. Biol. 14, 1450011 (2014)
11. A. Ghadimi, R. Saidur, H.S.C. Metsalaar, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 54, 4051 (2011)
12. A. Ghadimi, I.H. Metselaar, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 51, 1 (2013)
13. C. Anushree, J. Philip, J. Mol. Liq. 222, 350 (2016)
14. M.A. Khairul, K. Shah, E. Doroodchi, R. Azizan, B. Moghtaderi, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 98, 778
(2016)
15. H.J. Kim, S.H. Lee, J.H. Lee, S.P. Jang, Energy 90, 1290 (2015)
16. Babita, S.K. Sharma, S.M. Gupta, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 79, 202 (2016)
17. K.Y. Leong, M.H. Nurfadhillah, M.S. Risby, A.N. Hafizah, Therm. Sci. 20, 429 (2016)
18. R.S. Khedkar, N. Shrivastava, S.S. Sonawane, K.L. Wasewar, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 73, 54
(2016)
19. M. Hemmat Esfe, A. Karimipour, W.M. Yan, M. Akbari, M.R. Safaei, M. Dahari, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 88, 54 (2015)
20. Z. Said, R. Saidur, N.A. Rahim, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 59, 46 (2014)

123
Int J Thermophys (2017) 38:77 Page 15 of 15 77

21. M.H. Sajid, Z. Said, R. Saidur, F.R.M. Adikan, M.F.M. Sabri, N.A. Rahim, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf. 50, 108 (2014)
22. D. Rativa, L.A. Gómez-Malagón, Sol. Energy 118, 419 (2015)
23. T.B. Gorji, A.A. Ranjbar, S.N. Mirzababaei, Sol. Energy 119, 332 (2015)
24. M. Karami, M.A. Akhavan-Behabadi, M. Raisee Dehkordi, S. Delfani, Sol. Energy Mat. Sol. C 144,
136 (2016)
25. A. Menbari, A.A. Alemrajabi, Opt. Mater. 52, 116 (2016)
26. Sigma Aldrich, Titanium IV Oxide. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/718467?
lang=en&region=MY. Accessed 15 Jan 2017
27. D.D.L Chung, Carbon Composites, Composites with Carbon Fibers, Nanofibers and Nanotubes, 2nd
edn. (Elsevier, Oxford , 2017), pp. 517
28. Glass & Glazing Association of Australia (AGGA), Technical Data Sheet, Solar Spectrum Technical
Fact Sheet Solar Spectrum. https://www.agga.org.au/technical/technical-fact-sheets. Accessed 15 Jan
2017
29. L. Vandsburger, Synthesis and Covalent Surface Modification of Carbon Nanotubes for Preparation
of Stabilized Nanofluid Suspensions (M.Eng.McGill University, Montreal, 2009)
30. Y. Wu, K. Du, L. Yang, S. Bao, E. Wenji, Key Eng. Mater. 609–610, 587 (2014)
31. Z. Said, M.H. Sajid, R. Saidur, G.A. Mahdiraji, N.A. Rahim, Numer. Heat Tranf. A Appl. 67, 1 (2015)
32. H. Adam, M.A. Siddig, A.A. Siddig, N.A. Eltahir, Sudan Med. Monit. 8, 174 (2013)

123