ArticlePloS one2025
Techno-economic assessment of effervescent tablet-based nanofluids.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The techno-economics of producing effervescent tablet-based nanofluids in start-up industries was investigated. The thermophysical properties, equipment costs, consumables, and operational expenditures for the production methods were determined. Electrical costs for running the devices were assessed based on the lowest, average, and highest prices worldwide. Key financial metrics, including accumulated project cost, interest, annual cost, operating expenses, production cost, payback and discounted payback periods, and internal rate of return (IRR) were calculated for different interest rates and amounts of sold products. The thermal performance under laminar and turbulent flow conditions and cost effectiveness were determined. The results showed that the effervescent tablet-based nanofluid was more favourable than its conventional counterpart. This is because of the lower equipment cost for the effervescent tablet process compared to its counterpart. The interest rate showed significant influence on the annual and product costs for both types of projects. Electrical cost had a minimal impact on the previous costs for both project cases. In addition, the effervescent tablet-based project outperformed its counterpart in terms of payback period, discounted payback period, IRR, and thermal performance, making it an optimal choice for investors and decision-makers.
Indexed as
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.