ArticleScientific reports2023
A critical insight on nanofluids for heat transfer enhancement.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thermal Conductivity Enhancement of Cu- and Ag-Decorated MWCNT Hybrid Nanofluids Synthesized via Probe Ultrasonication.ChemistryOpen · 2026Article
- Regression and statistical analysis of heat transfer enhancement in water/ethylene glycol (40/60) base molybdenum carbide (MoDiscover nano · 2026Article
- Size effect on thermal conductivity and stability of TiORSC advances · 2025Article
- Mixed and forced convection heat transfer and pressure drop in inclined tube with twisted tape in transition flow.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Thermal and flow dynamics of an inclined air heat exchanger equipped with spring turbulators in the transition flow regime.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are numerous reports and publications in reputable scientific and engineering journals that attribute substantial enhancement in heat transfer capabilities for heat exchangers once they employ nanofluids as working fluids. By definition, a nanofluid is a working fluid that has a small volume fraction (5% or less) of a solid particle with dimensions in the nanoscale. The addition of this solid material has a reported significant impact on convective heat transfer in heat exchangers. This work investigates the significance of the reported enhancements in many recent related publications. Observations on these publications' geographical origins, fundamental heat transfer calculations, experimental setups and lack of potential applications are critically made. Heat transfer calculations based on methodologies outlined in random selection of available papers were conducted along with a statistical analysis show paradoxically inconsistent conclusion as well as an apparent lack of complete comprehension of convective heat transfer mechanism. In some of the surveyed literature for example, heat transfer coefficient enhancements were reported to be up to 27% and 48%, whereas the recalculations presented in this work restrain proclaimed enactments to ~ 3.5% and - 4% (no enhancement), respectively. This work aims at allowing a healthy scientific debate on whether nanofluids are the sole answer to enhancing convective heat transfer in heat exchangers. The quantity of literature that confirms the latter statement have an undeniable critical mass, but this volition could be stemming from and heading to the wrong direction. Finally, the challenges imposed by the physical nature of nanoparticles, as well as economic limitations caused by the high price of conventional nanoparticles such as gold (80$/g), diamond (35$/g), and silver (6$/g) that hinder their commercialization, are presented.
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.