4.7 Article

Experimental Investigation of Thermal Conductivity of Water-Based Fe3O4 Nanofluid: An Effect of Ultrasonication Time

Journal

NANOMATERIALS
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano12121961

Keywords

Fe3O4 nanofluid; thermal conductivity; ultrasonication time

Funding

  1. Laxminarayan Institute of Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work investigates the influence of ultrasonication duration on the thermal conductivity of Fe3O4 nanofluid. The results show that ultrasonication can increase the thermal conductivity of the nanofluid up to a certain duration, after which it starts to deteriorate. Additionally, the concentration of the nanofluid also affects the thermal conductivity, but the optimum ultrasonication time is the same for different concentrations.
Nanofluid preparation is a crucial step in view of their thermophysical properties as well as the intended application. This work investigates the influence of ultrasonication duration on the thermal conductivity of Fe3O4 nanofluid. In this work, water-based Fe3O4 nanofluids of various volume concentrations (0.01 and 0.025 vol.%) were prepared and the effect of ultrasonication time (10 to 55 min) on their thermal conductivity was investigated. Ultrasonication, up to a time duration of 40 min, was found to raise the thermal conductivity of Fe3O4 nanofluids, after which it starts to deteriorate. For a nanofluid with a concentration of 0.025 vol.%, the thermal conductivity increased to 0.782 W m(-1)K(-1) from 0.717 W m(-1)K(-1) as the ultrasonication time increased from 10 min to 40 min; however, it further deteriorated to 0.745 W m(-1)K(-1) after a further 15 min increase (up to a total of 55 min) in ultrasonication duration. Thermal conductivity is a strong function of concentration of the nanofluid; however, the optimum ultrasonication time is the same for different nanofluid concentrations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available