Thus, we conjectured that the nanolayer effect might be the only important factor among these three mechanisms affecting the SHC of the nanofluid. Accordingly, a theoretical model considering the nanolayer effect on the SHC was proposed. Since the solid-like nanolayer formed on the surface of NP is at a thermodynamic state between solid salt and molten salt [26], the value of the SHC of the nanolayer should lay between those of the solid salt (1.04 kJ/kg-K) and the molten salt (1.59 kJ/kg-K). In other words, the nanolayer selleckchem has

a lower SHC than that of the molten salt. Further, the thermal properties of the nanolayer (e.g., thermal conductivity and SHC) could vary with different combinations of NPs and base fluids, since the structure of the nanolayer is dependent on the interaction of molecules [28]. In addition, Lin et al. [25] also found selleck compound that the nanolayer structure is size-dependent, resulting in a size-dependent thermal conductivity. As a result, the SHC of the nanolayer is dependent on the size of the NP and the combinations of the NPs and base fluids. To the best of our knowledge, there is no experimental and theoretical data available for the SHC of the nanolayer for the molten salt-based alumina nanofluid. Thus, in this proposed model, the SHC of the nanolayer (c p,layer)

for a given NP size is first obtained from the experimental result of the SHC of the nanofluid at a certain particle concentration (i.e., c p,m): (2) where the subscript layer is denoted as nanolayer; W is weight; and W nf = W np + W f. In the model, it is assumed that the Progesterone measured SHC of the nanofluid (c p,m) is a result of the superposition of the SHCs of the nanolayer (c p,layer), the

NP (c p,np), and the Selleck MK-0457 solvent (c p,f) as in contrast to the existing model (Equation 1). Thus, the SHC of the nanolayer (c p,layer) for the given NP size could be obtained from Equation 2: (3) Once the SHC of the nanolayer was known, the SHC of the nanofluid (c p,nf) at any NP concentration (having a mass fraction α’ = W np ’/W nf ’) for the given NP size could be obtained as follows: (4) where W np ’, W layer ’, and W nf ’ are the weights of NP, nanolayer, and nanofluid at such NP concentration, respectively. Meanwhile, the weight of solvent (W f) is kept as a constant for various particle concentrations. Substituting c p,layer from Equation 3 into Equation 4, one can obtain the SHC of the nanofluid for the given NP size at such NP mass fraction (α’ = W np ’/W nf ’) as follows: (5) where α ( = W np/W nf) is the NP mass fraction in determining SHC of the nanolayer in Equations 2 and 3 and the SHC of the solvent (c p,f) was obtained from the DSC measurements (c p,f = 1.59 kJ/kg-K). It is worth noting that the SHCs of the NPs and nanolayer are not required for the theoretical prediction using Equation 5, of which the effects on the SHC of the nanofluid are implicitly included in the term c p,m in Equation 5.