ArticleACS omega2019
Comparison between Nucleate Pool Boiling Heat Transfer of Graphene Nanoplatelet- and Carbon Nanotube- Based Aqueous Nanofluids.
Article in ACS omega, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- TiACS omega · 2025Article
- Pool-Boiling Performance on Thin Metal Foils with Graphene-Oxide-Nanoflake Deposit.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increase of nucleate pool boiling with the use of different fluid properties has received much attention. In particular, the presence of nanostructures in fluids to enhance boiling was given special consideration. This study compares the effects of graphene nanoplatelet (GNP), functionalized GNP with polyethylene glycol (PEG), and multiwalled carbon nanotube (CNT) nanofluids on the pool boiling heat transfer coefficient and the critical heat flux (CHF). Our findings showed that at the same concentration, CHF for functionalized GNP with PEG (GNP-PEG)/deionized water (DW) nanofluids was higher in comparison with GNP- and CNT-based nanofluids. The CHF of the GNP/DW nanofluids was also higher than that of CNT/DW nanofluids. The CHF of GNP-PEG was 72% greater than that of DW at the concentration of 0.1 wt %. There is good agreement between measured critical heat fluxes and the Kandlikar correlation. In addition, the current results proved that the GNP-PEG/DW nanofluids are highly stable over 3 months at a concentration of 0.1 wt %.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.