Investigation of thermal conductivity, viscosity, and electrical conductivity of

graphene based nanofluids

Madhusree Kole and T. K. Dey
Citation: J. Appl. Phys. 113, 084307 (2013); doi: 10.1063/1.4793581
View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4793581
View Table of Contents: http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/JAPIAU/v113/i8
Published by the American Institute of Physics.

Related Articles
Graphene hydrogenation by molecular hydrogen in the process of graphene oxide thermal reduction
Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 071910 (2013)
Atomistic simulation study of brittle failure in nanocrystalline graphene under uniaxial tension
Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 071902 (2013)
Hole doping of graphene supported on Ir(111) by AlBr3
Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 061601 (2013)
Barrier tunneling time of an electron in graphene
J. Appl. Phys. 113, 043714 (2013)
Eliminating defects from graphene monolayers during chemical exfoliation
Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 043102 (2013)

Additional information on J. Appl. Phys.

Journal Homepage: http://jap.aip.org/
Journal Information: http://jap.aip.org/about/about_the_journal
Top downloads: http://jap.aip.org/features/most_downloaded
Information for Authors: http://jap.aip.org/authors

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 141.117.79.62. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 113, 084307 (2013)

Investigation of thermal conductivity, viscosity, and electrical conductivity

of graphene based nanofluids
Madhusree Kole and T. K. Deya)
Thermophysical Measurements Laboratory, Cryogenic Engineering Centre, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India

(Received 4 December 2012; accepted 12 February 2013; published online 27 February 2013)
Stable and well dispersed functionalized grapheneethylene glycol (EG) distilled water nanofluids
having graphene nano-sheets (GnS) volume concentration between 0.041 and 0.395 vol. % are
prepared without any surfactant. Graphene nano-sheets are prepared from high purity graphite
powder by Hummers method followed by exfoliation and reduction by hydrogen gas. Thus, obtained
hydrogen exfoliated graphene (HEG) is then functionalized using acid. The graphene nano-sheets are
characterized using XRD, TEM, Raman spectroscopy, and FTIR spectroscopy. Thermal conductivity
and viscosity measurements are performed both as a function of graphene loading and temperature
between 10 and 70  C. Thermal conductivity enhancement of 15% for a loading of 0.395 vol. %
f-HEG is observed at room temperature. The measured nanofluids thermal conductivity is explained
well in terms of the expression derived by Nan et al. (J. Appl. Phys. 81, 6692 (1997)), which
considers matrix-additive interface contact resistance of mis-oriented ellipsoidal particles. The
viscosity of the prepared f-HEG nanofluids and the base fluid (EG distilled water) displays
non-Newtonian behaviour with the appearance of shear thinning and nearly 100% enhancement
compared to the base fluid (EG DI water) with f-HEG loading of 0.395 vol. %. Known theoretical
models for nanofluids viscosity fail to explain the observed f-HEG volume concentration
dependence of the nanofluids viscosity. Temperature dependence of the studied nanofluid between
10 and 70  C is explained well by the correlations proposed earlier for nanofluids with spherical
nanoparticles. Electrical conductivity of the f-HEG nanofluids shows significant enhancement of
8620% for 0.395 vol. % loading of f-HEG in a base fluid of 70:30 mixture of EG and distilled
C 2013 American Institute of Physics. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4793581]
water. V
I. INTRODUCTION

Since the discovery of nanofluids by Choi,1 a large number of investigations have been reported on metallic and
metal oxide nanofluids, where the particles are spherical, and
also on carbon nanotube (CNT) based nanofluids, where the
particles are cylindrical in shape. However, till now, no definitive conclusions could be arrived to suggest a better and
stable replacement to the existing coolants. Graphene, a
single-atom-thick sheet of hexagonally arrayed sp2-bonded
carbon atoms, has attracted much attention since its discovery by Novoselov et al.2 in 2004. This two-dimensional (2D)
material, graphene, displays many unusual electrical, mechanical, and thermal behaviours, such as very high carrier
mobility,2 long-range ballistic transport at room temperature,3 quantum confinement in nanoscale ribbons,4 singlemolecule gas detection sensitivity,5 and high Youngs
modulus and fracture strength.6 In view of these unusual
properties, graphene is expected to be a potential material
for various new applications.7 Graphene is, however, a new
entrant in the area of nanofluids. Interestingly, the in-plane
thermal conductivity of a suspended single-layer graphene is
reported to be as high as 5200 W/mK.8 Further, as graphene
is a 2D material, the heat transfer properties are expected to
be much different from the zero dimensional nanoparticles
a)

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail:

tapasdey@hijli.iitkgp.ernet.in.

0021-8979/2013/113(8)/084307/8/$30.00

and one dimensional carbon nano-tube. Moreover, graphene

itself being an excellent thermal conductor, the graphene
based nanofluids are normally expected to display significant
thermal conductivity enhancement.
Yu et al.9 first reported the thermal conductivity of graphene oxide-ethylene glycol (EG) nanofluids. They observed
an enhancement of 61% for a loading of 5 vol. % of graphene
oxide nano-sheets at room temperature. Thermally exfoliated
graphene (TEG) based nanofluids with water and with EG has
been reported by Baby et al.10 They observed thermal conductivity enhancement of 14% with only 0.056 vol. % of
graphene nano-sheets (GnS) dispersed in de-ionized (DI)
water at 25  C, which increased to 64% at 50  C. However, a
marginal enhancement 4% at 25  C has been obtained for
EG based nanofluid with 0.05 vol. % of GnS. The same group
later11 reported an enhancement of 16% at 25  C with
0.05 vol. % of functionalized GnS prepared by hydrogen exfoliation of graphite oxide (GO) sheets dispersed DI water.
Similar enhancement has also been observed by Gupta et al.12
It may be noted that thermal conductivity of EG based nanofluids did not display any significant enhancement for low
volume concentrations. Highest enhancement in thermal conductivity (86%) has been reported so far by Yu et al.13 for
5 vol. % of GnS dispersed in water at 30  C prepared with sodium dodecyl-benzenesulfonate (SDBS) as surfactant.
It may be noted that for many applications, EG-water
mixture is generally used as the working coolant, while base
fluid used in most of the investigations on graphene

113, 084307-1

C 2013 American Institute of Physics

V

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 141.117.79.62. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

084307-2

M. Kole and T. K. Dey

J. Appl. Phys. 113, 084307 (2013)

nanofluids is either pure water or pure EG. In view of the

above, in the present communication, we report our results
on the thermal conductivity, viscosity, and electrical conductivity of graphene nanofluids with 70:30 (by volume) mixture of EG and distilled water as the base fluid. It may be
mentioned that this is the first report on the viscosity of graphene based nanofluids. Results have been discussed to identify the mechanisms responsible for the observed thermal
conductivity and viscosity enhancement in graphene nanofluids prepared with 70:30 mixture of EG and distilled water.
II. NANOFLUIDS PREPARATION
AND CHARACTERIZATION

Graphite (99.99%, SP-1) is procured from Bay Carbon,

Inc., USA. All other materials like sulfuric acid, nitric acid,
sodium nitrate, potassium permanganate, hydrogen peroxide,
ethanol, and EG are of analytical grade and are procured
from M/S Loba Chemicals, India. Distilled water is used
throughout the experiment. Graphite oxide is prepared from
graphite using Hummers method.14 The dried GO thus
obtained is exfoliated and reduced by controlled flow of high
purity hydrogen gas11 in the presence of Argon atmosphere
at 200  C. The hydrogen exfoliated graphene (HEG) is dark
black colour in appearance and is extremely light in weight.
The XRD pattern of graphite, GO, and HEG is shown in
Fig. 1. The intense crystalline peak (0 0 2) of graphite occurs
at 26.65 , which is the characteristic peak of hexagonal
graphite with a d-spacing of 0.34 nm. Upon oxidation of
graphite into GO, the peak position shifts to 11.14 . The interplanar spacing now increases to 0.79 nm. This increase in
d-spacing is due to the intercalation of OH containing functional groups in between the graphene layers. After exfoliation of GO with hydrogen at 200  C, the 11.14 peak
disappears and a broad peak appears, starting from 15 to

FIG. 1. XRD pattern of graphite, graphite oxide, and hydrogen exfoliated

graphene.

FIG. 2. Transmission electron micrograph of hydrogen exfoliated graphene

nano-sheets.

27 . The inter-planar spacing decreases to 0.39 nm. This indicates a large extent removal of oxygen and water from the
interlayer during exfoliation. This broad peak also indicates
loss of the long range order in the prepared graphene. The
transmission electron micrograph of HEG is shown in Fig. 2,
which confirms the sheet-like morphology of the prepared
graphene (HEG).
The Raman spectra of pristine graphite, GO, and HEG is
shown in Fig. 3. For graphite, a highly intense G band occurs
at 1586 cm1. This corresponds to the optically allowed E2g
phonons at the Brillouin zone centre.15 The absence of D
band in graphite suggests that graphite used is defect free.
The G band of GO is located at 1611 cm1. The G band of
HEG is shifted back to 1591 cm1, which is close the value
of pristine graphite indicating the reduction of GO during
hydrogen treatment. Moreover, a broadening of G band is
observed in GO and HEG and is attributed to an increase in
the disorder. The chemical treatment procedures to prepare
GO and its exfoliation to get HEG induce defects in the

FIG. 3. Raman spectra of pristine graphite (GR), GO, HEG, and functionalized graphene nano-sheets (f-HEG).

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 141.117.79.62. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

084307-3

M. Kole and T. K. Dey

graphitic structure. As a result, a broad D band with an intensity comparable to that of the G band is obtained in GO and
HEG as well. The D and G bands denote the presence of sp3
and sp2 hybridized carbon atoms, respectively, in the sample.
Due to their hydrophobic nature, the as-prepared HEG does
not disperse in water and EG and requires functionalization,
which is done by treating HEG with (3:1) concentrated
H2SO4 and HNO3. The acid-HEG mixture is ultrasonicated
for 2 h at room temperature and is then washed several times
with distilled water until pH becomes neutral. The solution is
then centrifuged and dried in a vacuum oven to get functionalized graphene. Figure 3 also includes the Raman spectra of
f-HEG. In HEG, the G and D bands occur at 1591 cm1 and
1355 cm1, respectively. In the case of f-HEG, both the band
positions are shifted to higher wave number side and also
broadened with respect to HEG. The G band has a broad
peak centred around 1596 cm1 and D band has a peak centred around 1366 cm1. The ratio of the D band intensity to
G-band intensity in f-HEG is higher than that of HEG. This
increase in the relative intensity of the disordered mode is
attributed to the increased number of structural defects.9,16,17
After acid functionalization, hexagonal carbon order gets disrupted, i.e., the carbon atoms get sp3 hybridized. The effect
of acid treatment and attachment of functional groups of the
synthesized f-HEG are further confirmed from FTIR studies
(Fig. 4). It may be observed that for f-HEG, the peaks at
around 3446 and 1620 cm1 are due to -OH functional
groups. A small doublet peak of -CH2 (2933 and 2866 cm1)
and -CH at 1363 cm1 is present both in HEG and f-HEG.
The peaks at 1710 and 1380 cm1 can be assigned to the
CO and C-O stretching vibrations of -COOH. These functional groups help the graphene sheets to disperse in waterEG mixture.
Functionalized grapheneEG distilled water (70:30)
nanofluids with various volume concentrations of GnS (viz.,
0.041, 0.124, 0.207, and 0.395 vol. %) are prepared by
intense ultrasonication for 45 min. No surfactant is used in
the preparation of the present nanofluids. It may be noted
that constancy in thermal conductivity of the nanofluid with
time reflects the stability of the nanofluids.9 Therefore, the
suspension stability of the prepared nanofluids is verified by
measuring periodically for several months, the thermal

FIG. 4. FTIR spectra of HEG and f-HEG.

J. Appl. Phys. 113, 084307 (2013)

conductivity of the stationary nanofluid maintained at 30  C.

The result (Fig. 5) shows that the thermal conductivity of the
nanofluids does not display any worthwhile degradation and
is constant for 150 days (5 months). The constant thermal
conductivity clearly reflects high stability of the garphene(EG-DI water) nanofluids.
III. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
A. Thermal conductivity

A transient hot-wire (THW) method is used for thermal

conductivity measurements. Since the THW measurement
lasts for a period of the order of seconds, the problems associated with convection can be eliminated. According to the
principle presented by Nagasaka and Nagashima,18 the thermal conductivities of measured fluids k can be determined
from


q
dT
:
(1)
k
4p
d ln t
As the thermal conductivity of the liquid is inversely proportional to the slope of the temperaturetime response of the
wire, it is calculated by measuring the slope of the straight
line represented by Eq. (1). The experimental uncertainty of
thermal conductivity measurements is estimated to be within
61%. The hot-wire cell is calibrated using ethylene glycol
and distilled water. The measured thermal conductivity of
ethylene glycol and water is found to be within 1% of the
reported values.
B. Viscosity

The viscosity of the nanofluids is measured by a

Brookfield programmable viscometer (model: LV DV-II-Pro)
appropriately connected to a PC controlled Julabo temperature controlled bath to vary the fluid temperature between
10 and 70  C. Basically, the viscometer drives a spindle
immersed in nanofluids. Due to rotation of the spindle, a viscous drag of the fluid against the spindle is developed, which
is measured by the deflection of the calibrated spring. The
temperature of the fluid is measured by a Pt-100 temperature

FIG. 5. Thermal conductivity versus number of days of the prepared nanofluids (containing 0.395 vol. % f-HEG) confirming the stability of the
suspension.

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 141.117.79.62. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

084307-4

M. Kole and T. K. Dey

J. Appl. Phys. 113, 084307 (2013)

sensor. By choosing the most appropriate spindle, data are

taken when the applied torque is between 10% and 100%.
The operation of the viscometer and data collection (namely,
viscosity, shear stress, shear strain rate, RPM, torque, and
temperature) is done using the WINGATHERV software. All the
measurements are performed under steady-state conditions
and the calibration of the viscometer was checked with
the standard fluid provided by Brookfield Engineering
Laboratories. The estimated maximum uncertainty in the viscosity measurement is 3%.
R

C. Electrical conductivity

Electrical conductivity of the GnS(EG distilled water)

nanofluids both as functions of f-HEG loading and fluid temperature between 10 and 70  C are measured using a M/S
EUTECH Instruments, Bench Conductivity/TDS meter
(model CON510). The conductivity meter has a measuring
range between 0.2 and 200 000 lS/cm and a resolution of
0.1%. Prior to the measurements, the meter is calibrated using
the buffer solutions of known electrical conductivities.
Measurements are performed using 40 ml of the nanofluid
sample in a cylindrical glass tube, with the conductivity probe
immersed in it. This entire assembly is placed in a temperature controlled bath (60.01  C). At each temperature, the
measurements are repeated for 5 times, and the average value
is taken. The estimated uncertainty in the measurement of
electrical conductivity of the nanofluid is within 65%.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Thermal conductivity

Experiments are performed both as a function of functionalized GnS concentration (0.041-0.395 vol. %) and fluid
temperature between 10 and 70  C. The thermal conductivity
ratio knf =kbf of the prepared nanofluids measured at 30  C
is shown in Fig. 6 as a function of f-HEG concentration.
Thermal conductivity of the prepared nanofluids increases
nearly linear with graphene concentration. Thermal conductivity shows a maximum enhancement of 15% for a loading of 0.395 vol. % f-HEG at 30  C. Figure 6 also includes

FIG. 6. Thermal conductivity ratio knf =kbf of the prepared nanofluids as a

function of nano-sheet concentration at room temperature. Comparison with
the thermal conductivity results on graphene nanofluids of others.11,12

the thermal conductivity enhancement of pure water and

pure EG based graphene nanofluids reported by others.11,12
It may be seen that our results are close to that reported by
Gupta et al.12 for chemically reduced graphene-water nanofluids. It is important to note from Fig. 6 that the thermal
conductivity enhancement obtained in the present case falls
in between, which reported for f-HEG dispersed in pure DI
water and pure EG, respectively.11 This is expected in view
of the fact that the base fluid in the present case is 70:30 (by
volume) mixture of EG and distilled water.
Hamilton and Crosser19 stated that the particle shape has
a substantial effect on the effective thermal conductivity of
the suspension when the particle-to-liquid thermal conductivity ratio is above 100. Gao et al.20 theoretically explained the
large enhancement of the effective thermal conductivity of
nanofluids by adjusting the shape of nanoparticles. Graphene
is a two-dimensional solid and has a very high aspect ratio. In
addition, graphene has the largest surface area compared to
nano-tubes and other nanoparticles; consequently, graphene
nano-sheets will have significantly larger contact area/interface with the base fluid. Therefore, the thermal contact resistance (Kapitza resistance) at the graphenefluid interface is
reduced profoundly. This should help to improve the effective
thermal conductivity of the nanofluid.
A benchmark study21 performed by researchers from
over 30 organizations worldwide on the thermal conductivity
of nanofluids demonstrated that the experimental data were
in good agreement with the effective medium theory developed for dispersed particles by Maxwell22 and generalized
by Nan et al.23 considering the matrix-additive interface contact resistance. The effective thermal conductivity expression
as suggested by Nan et al.23 for composite with completely
mis-oriented ellipsoidal particles is
knf kbf

3 /2b11 1  L11 b33 1  L33 

;
3  /2b11 L11 b33 L33

(2)

where Lii is the geometrical factor. bii is defined as

bii

kp  kbf
kbf Lii kp  kbf

(3)

with kp : the thermal conductivity of the ellipsoid particles.

For graphene, the aspect ratio is very high, so, L11 0 and
L33 1.13 It may be seen from Fig. 7 that the effective thermal conductivity proposed by Nan et al.23 fairly well explains
the measured data. Using least square fitting of the experiment data, the in-plane thermal conductivity of functionalized
HEG (f-HEG) is obtained as: 10.9 6 1.08 W/mK. It is seen
that the thermal conductivity of graphene estimated from the
effective-medium approximation is much lower than the
intrinsic thermal conductivity of suspended graphene sheet.8
This is possible because of the fact that the hydrogen exfoliated graphene contains various structural defects caused by
strong oxidization of graphite. Using Nan et al.23 model,
Yu et al.13 also estimated the in-plane thermal conductivity
of chemically reduced graphene to be 6.8 6 0.8 W/mK.
Similarly, the thermal conductivity of reduced graphene

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 141.117.79.62. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

084307-5

M. Kole and T. K. Dey

FIG. 7. Estimation of thermal conductivity of the prepared nanofluids by

Nan et al.23 model.

J. Appl. Phys. 113, 084307 (2013)

FIG. 9. Viscosity vs. shear strain rate of EG-distilled water mixture at different temperatures.

oxide measured by Schwamb et al.24 was reported to be

between 0.14 and 2.87 W/mK. Such a low value for thermal
conductivity of graphene was thought to be due to significant
amount of lattice defects introduced during the chemical oxidation of graphite to GO. Moreover, theoretical calculation25
demonstrated that the thermal conductivity of graphene is
also dependent on the size, the edge roughness, and the defect
density.
Figure 8 shows the temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity of the base fluid (70 vol. % EG 30 vol. %
distilled water), as well as that of nanofluids containing various volume concentrations of f-HEG. Temperature variation
of the thermal conductivity of both the base fluid and the
prepared nanofluids is qualitatively similar and increases linearly with increase in temperature. The enhancement ratios
are 4.3% and 13.4% for the nanofluids with f-HEG concentrations 0.041 and 0.395 vol. % at 10  C, respectively.
However, the values are enlarged up to only 5.6% and 17%,
respectively, when the temperature is raised to 70  C. The
above results demonstrate that temperature does not have a
strong influence on the thermal conductivity enhancement of
the present nanofluids. It may be noted that for graphenepure EG nanofluids nearly temperature independent behaviour of thermal conductivity enhancement has been reported
earlier.10,11,13 On the contrary, the thermal conductivity

In the absence of any prior data on the viscosity of both

base fluid (70 vol. % EG 30 vol. % distilled water) and the
functionalized graphene nanofluids, it is important to confirm
whether they display Newtonian or non-Newtonian behaviour as a function of both fluid temperature and graphene
concentration. The viscosity of the base fluid measured as a
function of shear strain rate between 10 and 70  C is shown
in Fig. 9. It may be seen that over the measured temperature
range, viscosity of the base fluid decreases with the shear
strain rate, indicating non-Newtonian behaviour. With
increasing GnS loading in the base fluid, this non-Newtonian
feature of the base fluid becomes more prominent (Fig. 10).
Shear stress vs. shear strain rate plot for both base fluid and
the prepared nanofluids at 30  C are shown in Fig. 11. It is
seen that for all the studied nanofluids, the shear stress varies

FIG. 8. Temperature dependence of thermal conductivity of both base fluid

and the prepared nanofluids.

FIG. 10. Viscosity vs. shear strain rate of the prepared nanofluid containing
0.395 vol. % f-HEG within the measured temperature range (1070  C).

enhancement of graphene-water nanofluids displays significant temperature dependence. In view of the above, for the
present (70:30) mixture of EG and distilled water based graphene nanofluids, the observed marginal influence of temperature on the thermal conductivity enhancement may be
expected.
B. Viscosity

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 141.117.79.62. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

084307-6

M. Kole and T. K. Dey

FIG. 11. Shear stress vs. shear strain rate plots of various GnS-EG distilled
water nanofluids at room temperature.

nonlinearly with shear strain rate, indicating the shear

thinning behaviour, which is consistent with the observed
decrease in viscosity with increasing shear strain rate for all
the studied nanofluids. Relative viscosity lnf =lbf of GnS
(EG distilled water) nanofluids increases with increasing
f-HEG loading at 30  C as is shown in Fig. 12. Viscosity of
the nanofluid enhances nearly by 100% that of the base
fluid, at a loading of 0.395 vol. % of f-HEG. It may be noted
that though the percentage enhancement in viscosity is large,
the absolute value of the nanofluid viscosity is very nominal
(12.1 cP) and is almost similar to that of ethylene glycol at
room temperature. Volume concentration dependence of viscosity of the f-HEG-EG distilled water nanofluids at room
temperature are estimated on the basis of the several existing
and widely used models2631 and is compared with the measured data (Fig. 12). We confirm that none of these models
viz., Einstein,26 Brinkman,27 Krieger and Dougherty,28
Batchelor,29 Neilson,30 and Kitano et al.31 could provide an
acceptable estimate of the measured viscosity of the graphene nanofluids. Temperature dependence of viscosity of
the nanofluids containing different volume concentrations of
f-HEG is shown in Fig. 13. The viscosity decreases rapidly
with rise in temperature and displays an asymptotic

J. Appl. Phys. 113, 084307 (2013)

FIG. 13. Temperature dependence of the viscosity of the prepared nanofluids

between 10 and 70  C for various f-HEG volume concentrations.

behaviour. The decrease in nanofluid viscosity with increase

in temperature is expected due to the weakening of the interparticle and inter-molecular adhesion forces and similar
trends have also been observed in almost all other varieties
of nanofluids.3234 Unfortunately, theoretical formulations to
predict the temperature dependence of viscosity of nanofluids are practically absent. A few empirical correlations for
temperature dependence of nanofluid viscosity were, however, suggested by a few authors32,3436 mainly to explain
their own set of viscosity data. These correlations were tested
to fit the present set of data on the temperature dependence
viscosity of GnS(EG distilled water) nanofluids. It may
be noted that all the four correlations referred above follow
equally well the measured temperature dependence of viscosity of the grapheneEG distilled water nanofluids with
average R2 value between 0.97728 and 0.98763.
C. Electrical conductivity

Though important, the electrical conductivity of nanofluids has not yet been widely studied compared to their
thermal conductivity. The electrical conductivity of a suspension can either increase or decrease depending on the

FIG. 12. Relative viscosity lnf of GnS-EG distilled water nanofluids at

bf
30  C as a function of functionalized GnS concentration. The solid lines are
the relative viscosity predicted by various classical models.2631

FIG. 14. Electrical conductivity as a function of f-HEG concentration at

room temperature. Line is a guide to the eye.

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 141.117.79.62. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

084307-7

M. Kole and T. K. Dey

J. Appl. Phys. 113, 084307 (2013)

containing 0.395 vol. % f-HEG. Though the percentage

enhancement in viscosity is large, its absolute value is, however, very nominal (12.1 cP), nearly same as EG at room temperature. None of the classical models succeed in explaining
the observed viscosity enhancement with f-HEG loading at
room temperature. Temperature dependence of viscosity of
the prepared nanofluids is well explained by some of the existing empirical correlations. Electrical conductivity of the nanofluids increases linearly both with f-HEG concentration and
the base fluid temperature. Enhancement of electrical conductivity by 87 times that of the base fluid is obtained for nanofluid with 0.395 vol. % of f-HEG at 30  C. The above results
indicate that the graphene(EG water) nanofluids could possibly be a useful candidate for coolant applications.
FIG. 15. Electrical conductivity as a function of fluid temperature for base
fluid and all the prepared nanofluids. All lines are guide to the eye.

background electrolyte, the particle size,37,38 the particle

loading,39 and the charge of the particle.40 An analytical
model was proposed38 to explain the particle size and concentration effects on nanofluid electrical conductivity.
Electrical conductivity of the present f-HEGEG distilled
water nanofluids increases linearly with volume concentration of functionalized HEG as shown in Fig. 14. The electrical conductivity of the base fluid increases from 1 lS/cm to
87.2 lS/cm for a loading of 0.395 vol. % f-HEG at 30  C,
which corresponds to an anomalous enhancement of 8620%.
Fig. 15 shows the temperature dependence of electrical conductivity of both the base fluid and prepared nanofluids. It is
seen that the electrical conductivity increases linearly with
temperature for all cases; however, the rate of enhancement
is higher for nanofluids with higher loading of functionalized graphene. Baby et al.11 observed an enhancement in
electrical conductivity by 1400% for f-HEG loading of
0.03 vol. % in DI water at 25  C. But in case of pure EG as
base fluid, the increment was only 220%. In both cases, the
electrical conductivity increased with increasing volume
concentration as well as increasing fluid temperature.
V. CONCLUSIONS

Summarizing, hydrogen exfoliated graphene nano-sheets

are prepared and functionalized. Surfactant free graphene
EG distilled water nanofluid prepared by ultrasonication are
found to be stable for greater than 5 months. Thermal conductivity, viscosity, and electrical conductivity of the nanofluids
are measured both as a function of f-HEG concentration and
fluid temperature between 10 and 70  C. Thermal conductivity
results show a maximum enhancement of 15% for a loading
of 0.395 vol. % f-HEG at 30  C, and the thermal conductivity
of f-HEG is estimated to be 10.9 6 1.08 W/mK. Thermal conductivity of both the base fluid and the prepared nanofluids
increases linearly with temperature. However, the thermal
conductivity ratios are nearly temperature independent.
Viscosity measurements confirm that both the base fluid and
prepared nanofluids are non-Newtonian in nature throughout
the measured temperature range. Viscosity enhances by
100% that of base fluid at room temperature for nanofluid

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

One of the authors (T.K.D.) acknowledges the financial

help received from Department of Science & Technology
(DST), New Delhi, in the form of a research Grant. Award
of a CSIR Senior Research Fellowship is also gratefully
acknowledged by Miss Madhusree Kole.
1

S. U. S. Choi, in ASME FED (1995), Vol. 231, p. 99.

K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V.
Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science 306, 666 (2004).
3
C. Berger, Z. Song, X. Li, X. Wu, N. Brown, C. Naud, D. Mayou, T. Li, J.
Hass, A. N. Marchenkov, E. H. Conrad, P. N. First, and W. A. de Heer,
Science 312, 1191 (2006).
4
Z. Chen, Y. M. Lin, M. J. Rooks, and P. Avouris, Physica E 40, 228
(2007).
5
F. Schedin, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, E. W. Hill, P. Blake, M. I.
Katsnelson, and L. S. Novoselov, Nature Mater. 6, 652 (2007).
6
A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Mater. 6, 183 (2007).
7
A. K. Geim, Science 324, 1530 (2009).
8
A. A. Balandin, S. Ghosh, W. Z. Bao, I. Calizo, D. Teweldebrhan, F.
Miao, and C. N. Lau, Nano Lett. 8, 902 (2008).
9
W. Yu, H. Xie, and D. Bao, Nanotechnol. 21, 055705 (2010).
10
T. T. Baby and S. Ramaprabhu, J. Appl. Phys. 108, 124308 (2010).
11
T. T. Baby and S. Ramaprabhu, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 6, 289 (2011).
12
S. S. Gupta, V. M. Siva, S. Krishnan, T. S. Sreeprasad, P. K. Singh, T.
Pradeep, and S. K. Das, J. Appl. Phys. 110, 084302 (2011).
13
W. Yu, H. Xie, X. Wang, and X. Wang, Phys. Lett. A 375, 1323 (2011).
14
W. S. Hummers and R. E. Offeman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 80, 1339 (1958).
15
S. Reich and C. Thomsen, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 362,
2271 (2004).
16
K. N. Kudin, B. Ozbas, H. C. Schniepp, R. K. Prudhomme, I. A. Aksay,
and R. Car, Nano Lett. 8, 36 (2008).
17
Y. Liu, Y. Gao, J. Sun, Y. Wang, and J. Zhang, Nanotechnol. 20, 465605
(2009).
18
Y. Nagasaka and A. Nagashima, J. Phys. E: J. Sci. Instrum. 14, 1435
(1981).
19
R. L. Hamilton and O. K. Crosser, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1, 187 (1962).
20
L. Gao and X. F. Zhou, Phys. Lett. A 348, 355 (2006).
21
J. Buongiorno, D. C. Venerus, N. Prabhat, T. McKrell, J. Townsend, R.
Christianson et al., J. Appl. Phys. 106, 094312 (2009).
22
J. C. Maxwell, A Treaties on Electricity and Magnetism, 2nd ed.
(Clarendon, Oxford, UK, 1881), Vol. 1, p. 435.
23
C. W. Nan, R. Birringer, D. R. Clarke, and H. Gleiter, J. Appl. Phys. 81,
6692 (1997).
24
T. Schwamb, B. R. Burg, N. C. Schirmer, and D. Poulikakos, Nanotechnol.
20, 405704 (2009).
25
D. L. Nika, E. P. Pokatilov, A. S. Askerov, and A. A. Balandin, Phys. Rev.
B 79, 155413 (2009).
26
A. Einstein, Investigations on the Theory of the Brownian Movement
(Dover, New York, 1956).
27
H. C. Brinkman, J. Chem. Phys. 20, 571 (1952).
28
I. M. Krieger and T. J. Dougherty, Trans. Soc. Rheol. 3, 137 (1959).
2

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 141.117.79.62. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

084307-8
29

M. Kole and T. K. Dey

G. K. Batchelor, J. Fluid Mech. 83, 97 (1977).

L. E. Nielsen, J. Appl. Phys. 41, 4626 (1970).
31
T. Kitano, T. Kataoka, and T. Shirota, Rheol. Acta 20, 207 (1981).
32
D. P. Kulkarni, D. K. Das, and G. A. Chukwu, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 6,
1150 (2006).
33
P. K. Namburu, D. P. Kulkarni, A. Dandekar, and D. K. Das, Micro Nano
Lett. 2, 67 (2007).
34
P. K. Namburu, D. P. Kulkarni, D. Misra, and D. K. Das, Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 32, 397 (2007).
30

J. Appl. Phys. 113, 084307 (2013)

35

R. C. Reid, J. M. Prausnitz, and T. K. Sherwood, The Properties of Gases

and Liquids, 4th ed. (McGraw Hill, New York, 1987).
36
B. C. Sahoo, R. S. Vajjha, R. Ganguli, G. A. Chukwu, and D. K. Das, Pet.
Sci. Technol. 27, 1757 (2009).
37
S. Ganguly, S. Sikdar, and S. Basu, Powder Technol. 196, 326 (2009).
38
S. B. White, Enhancement of boiling surfaces using nanofluid particle
deposition, Ph. D dissertation (University of Michigan, 2010).
39
F. Fang and Y. F. Zhang, J. Mater. Sci. 40, 2979 (2005).
40
J. D. Posner, Mech. Res. Commun. 36, 22 (2009).

Downloaded 01 Mar 2013 to 141.117.79.62. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jap.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions