4.7 Article

Green bio glycol Al2O3-SiO2 hybrid nanofluids for PEMFC: The thermal-electrical-hydraulic perspectives

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2021.105870

关键词

Electrical conductivity; Hybrid nanofluids; PEMFC; Thermal conductivity; Viscosity

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia [FRGS/1/2019/TK10/UITM/02/12, 600-IRMI/FRGS 5/3 (375/2019)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that using Al2O3-SiO2 hybrid nanofluids as a cooling liquid for PEMFC instead of conventional ethylene glycol can significantly improve thermal conductivity and electrical conductivity, thereby enhancing energy conversion efficiency.
Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) is seen as an emerging sustainable technology which has a promising future due to its excellence in energy conversion efficiency with almost zero emission pollution. In this study, the new revolutionized, Al2O3-SiO2 hybrid nanofluids in green Bio Glycol were investigated as an alternative cooling liquid to PEMFC. This Bio Glycol was explored due to the advantage of its non-toxicity characteristic as opposed to conventional ethylene glycol. There were four hybrid ratios studied which were 10:90, 30:70, 50:50 and 70:30 (Al2O3-SiO2) in a Water: Bio Glycol (W:BG) mixture. The green Bio Glycol hybrid Al2O3-SiO2 nanofluids outperformed both single nanofluids and the base fluid significantly especially in terms of thermal conductivity and electrical conductivity properties. Thermal conductivity was increased by up to 21.2% as compared to the base fluid. The electrical conductivity showed a reduction as compared to base fluid which was very attractive for an electrically active heat transfer application of PEMFC. Viscosity increased as expected in these hybrid nanofluids. The thermal-electrical-hydraulic properties of the hybrid Al2O3-SiO2 nanofluid in green Bio was established and the 30:70 Al2O3-SiO2 Bio Glycol hybrid ratio was favoured as the most feasible ratio for PEMFC adoption.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据