From: A review on solar water heating technology: Impacts of parameters and techno-economic studies
Author, (year) | Type of study | Observation |
---|---|---|
Sokhansefat et al. (2014) | Numerical | Heat transfer coefficient enhanced with the presence of nanoparticles but decreased with an increased operating temperature of the absorber tube hence, the application of nanoparticles achieves reduced heat transfer areas in PTC systems |
Mwesigye et al. (2015) | Numerical | The thermal efficiency of the receiver improved by nanofluids up to 7.6% |
Conclusively, beyond certain Reynolds numbers application of nanofluids becomes thermodynamically undesirable | ||
Numerical | Thermal oil with nanoparticles showed the best working fluid performance compared to pressurized water as a result of high-pressure level demand | |
The study further revealed that the wavy collector design improved the average efficiency by 4.55%, but increased the pressure losses | ||
Mirzaei (2017) | Experimental | Efficiency decreases as HTF decreases |
CuO nanofluid provides better improvement than the Al2O3 | ||
Mwesigye and Meyer (2017) | Numerical | The optimal flow rate of about 22.5 m3 h−1 was achieved for all the considered nanofluids and parameters |
Huge potential for energetic and exergetic performance improvement with high concentration ratios was also observed | ||
Genc et al. (2018) | Numerical | Nanoparticles were more effective at flow rates below 0.016 kg/s on the exit temperature of FPCs. The method of analysis was recommended for PV/T systems |
Mohammed et al. (2021) | Numerical | Hybrid nanofluids showed superior thermal performance and boosted the thermal efficiency of the PTSC by 11.5%. The results were recommended for PTSC industry further development |
Thulasi et al. (2021) | Numerical | The thermal performance of a SWH was enhanced with Epsom salt. The study indicated that 92% thermal efficiency higher than the 82% common SWH efficiency was observed |