energies

Article
A Comparative Thermal and Economic Investigation of
Similar Shell & Tube and Plate Heat Exchangers with Low
Concentration Ag-H2O Nanofluid
Seyed Hadi Pourhoseini 1 , Mojtaba Baghban 1 and Maryam Ghodrat 2, *

1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Gonabad,

Gonabad 9691957678, Iran
2 School of Engineering and Information Technology, UNSW Canberra, Canberra, ACT 2612, Australia
* Correspondence: m.ghodrat@unsw.edu.au

Abstract: Plate Heat Exchanger (PHE) and Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger (STHE) with identical
heat transfer areas and material characteristics are proposed and a comparative thermal and eco-
nomic comparative analysis is carried out on both exchangers. Ag-water nanofluid is used at low
concentrations (0, 2.5, 5, 10 mg/L), flow rates (2, 5, and 8 L/min), and inlet temperatures (36, 46,
and 56 ◦ C) as hot flow and the heat transfer coefficient (U), electrical power consumption of the
pump, and costs per unit of average U value are considered as the calculated parameters for each
heat exchanger in co-current and counter-current flows. The results revealed that PHE generates a
higher U value compared to the STHE under different Ag-water nanofluid concentrations. This is
due to the existence of grooves on the plates of PHE which generates turbulent flow. The impact
of nanofluid concentration on U is negligible for lower concentrations in both PHE and STHE. It is
also found that the nanofluid flow rate has the highest impact on the U value, just like conventional
fluid. Besides, even though counter-current flow increases the U values for both PHE and STHE,
the flow pattern has a higher impact on the U value of PHE than that of STHE. For both PHE and
STHE, increasing the nanofluid flow rate enhances the amount of U. However, the effect of flow
rate on the U value of PHE is greater than that of the STHE. It is also shown that throughout the
Citation: Pourhoseini, S.H.; Baghban,
M.; Ghodrat, M. A Comparative
entire experimental temperature domain, PHE has had higher performance than STHE, and as the
Thermal and Economic Investigation fluid temperature increased from 36 to 56 ◦ C, there was a slight increase in the overall heat transfer
of Similar Shell & Tube and Plate of both PHE and STHE. Furthermore, for the same flow rate, both PHE and STHE had almost the
Heat Exchangers with Low same pump power consumption, and increasing the nanofluid flow rate from 2 L/min to 8 L/min
Concentration Ag-H2 O Nanofluid. promoted the electrical power consumption of the pump. Finally, we found that the costs per unit
Energies 2023, 16, 1854. https:// of heat transfer coefficient for PHE are significantly lower than STHE. The presented results also
doi.org/10.3390/en16041854 indicated that using a vortex generator at the inlet of STHE tubes, to form turbulent flow, increases
Academic Editor: Adrián the U values of STHE for both co-current and counter-current flows but these U values are lower
Mota Babiloni than the corresponding U values of PHE. Small plates gap in PHE structure cause higher fluid flow
velocities and create a chain-like structure of nanoparticles (NPs) between PHE’s plates (especially at
Received: 19 January 2023
higher nanofluids concentrations).
Revised: 6 February 2023
Accepted: 10 February 2023
Keywords: PHE and STHE; U value; nanofluid; concentration; flow rate
Published: 13 February 2023

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. 1. Introduction

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Heat exchangers are among the most well-known and widespread heat transfer devices
This article is an open access article for the transfer of heat between two fluid flows in cooling and heating systems [1]. These
distributed under the terms and fluids may be a gas, liquid, or a combination of both, and the fluids may be mixed together
conditions of the Creative Commons or separated by a solid wall. Also, the configuration of heat exchangers must be provided
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the maximum heat transfer area to increase the thermal efficiency of the heat exchanger
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
while minimizing the pressure drop.
4.0/).

Energies 2023, 16, 1854. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16041854 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 1854 2 of 14

Shell and tube heat exchangers (STHE) and plate heat exchangers (PHE) are the most
common and popular types of heat exchangers [2]. An STHE has several tubes installed
within a cylindrical container known as a ‘shell’. Each tube passes through a series of baffles
and tube sheets. High-pressure fluid flows into the tube side medium while low-pressure
fluid flows into the shell side. APHEconsists of a series of metalplates known as hot plates
and cold plates fluids flow over these plates and the transferheatprocess between two fluids
is done through these plates. The main advantage of this type of converter is to provide a
high heat transfer surface in a small volume. PHEs are now widely used in domestic hot
water packages and industrial applications. Smaller versions of PHEs tend to be brazed,
whereas larger commercial versions usegasketsbetween the plates.
There are several investigations about the enhancement of heat transfer characteristics
of STHEs and PHEs. For example, for the aim of heat transfer improvement of STHEs,
Wang et al. [3] used sealers on the shell side to fill the slots between theshell and baffle
plates. They observed that this method effectively reduces the short-circuit flow in the shell
side. Also, the heat transfer results of the modified STHE revealed an increase in the heat
transfer coefficient of shell-side, the overall heat transfer coefficient, and exergy efficiency
as much as 18.2–25.5%, 15.6–19.7% and 12.9–14.1%, respectively. Also, they observed that
the installation of sealers increases the pressure drop by 44.6–48.8%. However, they stated
that the increase in pumping cost resulting from increased pressure drop is negligible
compared to the improvement of heat transfer. Finally, they mentioned that the installation
of sealers on the shell side intensified the heat transfer efficiency of STHE. Hosseini et al. [4]
experimentally studied the impact of the outer surface pattern of tubes including smooth,
corrugated, and with micro-fins on the pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient of an
STHE. Also, the obtained experimental data were compared with the theoretical data
available. The findings revealed that the use of micro-finned tubes significantly enhances
the thermal performance of STHE, especially at higher Reynolds numbers. However, at
a low Reynolds number (Re < 400), corrugated and micro-fin tubes showed a reduction
in performance. In another similar work, Amini et al. [5] investigated the impact of using
segmented and helical tube fins on the heat transfer performance (HTP) of an STHE. The
study was a numerical base using FLUENT for different conditions. The simulations
showed using segmented fins and helical fins increase HTP by as much as 6% and 9.5%,
respectively. Also, they reported that the simultaneousness of helical fins with larger height
and smaller pitch and low surface roughness prominently increases the efficiency of the
STHE. Zhang et al. [6] have done a study on the techniques of enhancement heat transfer in
plate heat exchangers. Geometrical parameters, passive surface, and diverse heat transfer
enhancement techniques were investigated and compared. This review indicated that
for the chevron-type PHE, the chevron angle has the greatest impact on the heat transfer
characteristics by changing the flow structures. Also, they mentioned that these techniques
are commonly effective at low Reynolds numbers. Gut et al. [7] expanded a model in
the algorithm for the steady-state simulation of gasketed plate heat exchangers (GPHE)
with generalized configurations. The number of channels and passes at each side, feed
connection locations, fluid locations, and type of channel flow were the configuration
parameters. The main aim of this work was to find a more flexible algorithm for the
simulation and comparison of various configurations of PHEs. Luan et al. [8] proposed
a new design for the corrugated PHE. In the proposed design, compound corrugated
plates were used. The performance characteristics of the new proposed design were
investigated both experimentally and numerically. The findings showed that, although the
new proposed design decreases the resistance to flow compared to the ordinary chevron
type up to 50% the heat transfer rate was reduced by about 25%.
Nanoparticles are small-scale metallic or non-metallic particles, which have a high
surface area/volume ratio and unique properties that make them a suitable choice for a
variety of applications [9,10]. In this way, nanoparticles have made essential developments
in various fields such as medicine [11–16], chemical sensors [17–21], bio and electrical
engineering [22–24], semiconductors [25–28], electronics and energy applications [29–32].
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 3 of 14

Since nanoparticles (NPs) have unique properties compared to fluids, using them as
additives can enhance the convection and thermal performance of heat exchangers [33–38].
Atashafrooz [39] numerically investigated the effects of Ag-water nanofluid on thermal and
hydrodynamic behaviors of three-dimensional separated step flow. The numerical results
showed that the effect of nanofluid concentration on temperature is significantly greater
than the velocity distribution. Furthermore, an increase in nanoparticle concentration raises
the friction coefficient and mean bulk temperature. In another numerical study, Harish
and Sivakumar [40] used a two-phase mixture model to investigate the flow and heat
transfer characteristics of nanofluids inside a cubical enclosure. Silver (Ag), Copper (Cu)
and Aluminum oxide (Al2 O3 ) were the selected nanoparticles. The results showed that
the random Brownian motion of nanoparticles increases thermal convection and enhances
the rate of energy exchange between the fluid and particle phases. Also, they observed
that Ag nanoparticles are the most effective nanoparticles additive. Farajollahi et al. [41]
investigated the impacts of TiO2 -H2 O and Al2 O3 -H2 O nanofluids (NFs) flow in STHE
on thermal properties. They observed that both nanoparticles (NPs) have a great effect
on HTP. Furthermore, the γ-Al2 O3 -H2 O shows more improvement than the TiO2 -H2 O
nanofluid. Elias et al. [42] perused the impact of NPs shapes on the thermal and entropy
generation of an STHE. They reported that cylindrical shape nanoparticles have the best U
value compared to other forms. Bahiraei et al. [43] investigated the effects of Boehmite NPs
shapes on the thermal-hydraulic characteristics of an STHE. They concluded that platelet-
shaped NPs have the highest U value, and Os-shaped nanoparticles gain minor pressure
loss in the STHE. Anitha et al. [44] studied the HTP of alumina-copper/water hybrid NF in
an STHE. They revealed that when they used a hybrid nanofluid in the STHE, nanoparticle
concentration and proportion had the most impact on the HTP. Furthermore, hybrid
nanofluid significantly increased the effectiveness of the heat exchanger. In another work,
Bahiraei and Monavari [45] investigated the impacts of NPs shapes on the performance
of a mini STHE with fin and without fin in their structure. They observed increasing the
Reynolds number of nanofluid raised U value, pressure drop (PD), and effectiveness of
the STHE. Furthermore, they showed that the existence of a fin improved the heat transfer
efficiency of the STHE. Huang et al. [46] investigated HTP and PD of hybrid NFs in plate
heat exchangers (PHE). Hybrid NF was a mixture of MWCNT-H2 O and Al2 O3 -H2 O NFs.
The results showed that hybrid NFs give a slightly larger U value than Al2 O3 -H2 O NFs
at the same flow rates. In addition, compared to the Al2 O3 -H2 O NFs, hybrid NFs in
PHE decreased PD. Taghizadeh-Tabari et al. [47] tested TiO2 -H2 O NFs in the PHE of milk
industries. They observed that TiO2 -H2 O NFs at all concentrations raise both HTP and PD.
Furthermore, the performance indexes (the ratio of convection enhancement to the PD),
which simultaneously considered both heat transfer rate and pressure drop, increased. In a
similar study, Barzegarian et al. [48] investigated the impacts of TiO2 -H2 O NFs in a BPHE
(brazed PHE) on HTP and PD properties. The NF concentrations in this study were 0.3%,
0.8%, and 1.5% (by weight). The results showed that while NF enhanced the convective
heat transfer coefficient (h) and U value, its impact on PD was negligible. The maximum
enhancement of h and U were 23.7% and 8.5%, respectively. Bhattad et al. [49] perused the
HTP of PHE using hybrid NFs. They produced hybrid NFs by mixing Al2 O3 NPs with TiO2
NPs in different ratios (5:0, 4:1, 3:2, 2:3, 1:4, and 0:5). The maximum enhancement of heat
transfer rate belonged to Al2 O3 (5:0) hybrid NF as much as 4.5% and the maximum increase
in pump work was about 0.013% for TiO2 (0:5) hybrid NF. Hajabdollahi et al. [50] studied
the effects of NPs shape on thermal characteristics and the annual cost of a GPHE. In the
study, they used alumina and boehmite NPs with different shapes including blade, platelet,
cylinder, and brick. This investigation showed that from a thermo-economic improvement
point of view, cylinder shape is the most optimal shape for NPs and platelet, brick, and
blade shapes were in the next ranks. Furthermore, they reported that using both alumina
and boehmite NF as working fluid in PHE decreases the required heat exchanger volume.
Gürbüz et al. [51] investigated utilizing NF, as a widely used method forthe enhancement
of the thermal properties of PHEs. In their case study, they used hybrid-type NF consisting
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 4 of 14

of the same amount of alumina and copper oxide NPs. They used the hybrid NF in PHEs
with different plates (8, 12, and 16 plates) and observed that the use of hybrid-type NF
instead of single-type NF improves the HTP of PHE. Also, the results demonstrated that an
increase in theHE plate number leads to more increasein HTP.Sözen et al. [52] prepared
NF including 2% (wt/wt) kaolin and 0.2% (wt/wt) Triton X-100 surfactant and used it as a
working fluid in a PHE. Temperature and mass flow rate of NF varied in the experiments
and the results showed an increase in mean U value of as much as 9.3% compared to the
deionized water.
A detailed survey of the existing literature reveals that by far most studies only inves-
tigated the effects of nanofluids on the HTP of PHE or STHE. However, there is no coherent
thermal and economic comparative study on the application of nanoparticles in PHE and
STHE as the most common and popular types of heat exchangers from both a heat transfer
and economic characteristics point of view. Consequently, in this work, we determined
a PHE and STHE with the same heat transfer area and material characteristics. Then we
carried out a comparative investigation on the effect of different low concentrations, flow
rates, flow regimes, and fluid temperatures of Ag-H2 O nanofluids on the overall heat
transfer coefficient (U) and the costs related to U value (costs per unit of U value) for both
PHE and STHE. It is worth mentioning that the reason behind the use of Ag nanoparticles is
that they are among the most well-known metal nanoparticles which play a special role due
to their unique optical, electrical, and thermal properties [53,54]. Also, they have higher
thermal conductivity (429 W/m.K at 300 K) than very nanofluids such as hybrid nanofluids
which are mentioned above and consequently they will show a high limit of the effect of
using nanofluids.

2. Materials, Experimental Setup, and Procedure

Silver-Water nanofluid in the concentration of 100 mg/L was produced by the chemical
reduction method explained in the previous work [55]. In this method, AgNO3 (17.0 mg)
was dissolved in 100 mL of water in a 250 mL tri-neck flask. The solution was heated to
boiling point with a hemisphere-heating mantle under vigorous magnetic stirring. After
boiling for 2 min, an aqueous solution of sodium citrate (35 mM, 10 mL) was rapidly added
to the flask. The solution gradually turned yellow within a few minutes, indicating the
formation of Ag nanoparticles. The solution was kept boiling for an additional 6 min. After
that, the heating mantle was removed, and the solution was allowed to cool down so that
we obtained synthesized silver-water nanofluid of a concentration of 100 mg/L. Figure 1
illustrates the AFM image of Ag NPs. The average diameter of the Ag NPs was 16.2 nm.
The diluted concentrations obtained from synthesized silver-water nanofluid were 2.5, 5,
and 10 mg/L. Nanofluids were poured into an insulated tank installed on the test setup
and preheated to reach the specified temperature with an electric immersion heater of 3 kW.
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the test setup. Its main components are:
1: Two rotameters to adjust the flow rates of the hot and cold streams (Flow Range:
0.8–8 L/min, accuracy = ±2%).
2: Four pt100 temperature sensors with digital display to measure the inlet and outlet
temperatures of hot and cold fluid flows (Temperature range: −50–400 ◦ C, accuracy = ±1%).
3: A centrifugal pump (stainless steel, nominal power = 0.37 KW) to circulate nanofluid
between the tank and heat exchanger.
4: Voltmeter and ammeter used to measure the power consumption of the pump
(pump work).
5: Heat exchanger (PHE/STHE).
Energies 2023,
Energies 16, 1854
2023, 16, 1854 5 5ofof14
14
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 5 of 14

Figure 33 shows the geometrical

Figure geometrical configuration
configurationof ofSTHE
STHE(left)
(left)and
andPHEPHE(right).
(right).STHE
STHEis
isa single type
a single and
type consists
and of
consiststubes,
of shells,
tubes, baffles,
shells, and
baffles, hot
andand
hot cold
and flow
cold inlets
flow
Figure 3 shows the geometrical configuration of STHE (left) and PHE (right). STHE and outlets.
inlets and
Also,
outlets. PHE has
Also, grooved
PHE has plates
grooved in which
plates hot
in and
which cold
hot fluids
and flow
cold over
fluids them.
flow Tables
over
is a single type and consists of tubes, shells, baffles, and hot and cold flow inlets and 1
them. and
Ta-2
show
bles 1 the
and detailed
2 show specification
the detailed of the PHE and
specification ofSTHE
the including
PHE and materials
STHE and
including
outlets. Also, PHE has grooved plates in which hot and cold fluids flow over them. Ta- dimensions,
materials
respectively.
and
blesdimensions,
1 and 2 show respectively.
the detailed specification of the PHE and STHE including materials
and dimensions, respectively.

Figure
Figure1.
1.AFM
AFMimage
imageof
ofAg
AgNPs.
NPs.**shows
showsaxis
axisdirection.
direction.
Figure 1. AFM image of Ag NPs. * shows axis direction.

Figure 2. Schematic of the test setup.

Figure 2 Figure 2. Schematic of the test setup.

Figure 3. Geometrical configuration of STHE (left) and PHE (right).

Figure 3. Geometrical configuration of STHE (left) and PHE (right).
Figure 3. Geometrical configuration of STHE (left) and PHE (right).
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 6 of 14

Table 1. PHE specification.

Property Value
Plates area 0.21 m2
Plates material Stainless steel 316(L)
Plates gap (b) 2.5 mm
Plate height 193 mm
Plate width (W) 83 mm
Plate thickness 0.5 mm

Table 2. STHE specification.

Property Value
Total heat transfer area 0.21 m2
Tubes material Stainless steel 316(L)
Number of tubes 30
Tube length 450 mm
Tube ID (Inner Diameter) 4 mm

After installation of the heat exchanger on the test setup, silver-water nanofluid as
the hot stream and pure water as the cold stream were flowing, and the data including
inlet and outlet temperatures, flow rates, voltage, and energy requirement of the pump
(volts and amps) were recorded in steady condition. The volume flow rates were 2, 5, and
8 L/min for the silver-water nanofluid and the volume flow rate of the cold fluid was
adjusted at 3 L/min for all experiments. Also, the inlet temperatures of nanofluids were 36,
46, and 56 ◦ C. Finally, to make sure of the accuracy of the results, the uncertainty analysis
was done according to the repeatability of measurements, and the accuracy of the tools.

3. Data Analysis
U value was derived from the following relation:

Q
U= (1)
A∆TLMTD
where A is the total surface area of heat exchangers (0.21 m2 ), and ∆TLMTD is called the
logarithmic mean temperature difference and is formulated as follows:

( Th,in − Tc,out ) − ( Th,out − Tc,in )

∆T LMTD = 
T −T
 Counter − current (2)
ln Th,in −Tc,out
h,out c,in

( Th,in − Tc,in ) − ( Th,out − Tc,out )

∆T LMTD = 
T −T
 Co − current (3)
ln T h,in −Tc,in
c,out
h,out

where Th,in and Th,out are the steady temperatures of the hot stream at the inlet and outlet
of the heat exchanger (HE), and Tc,in and Tc,out are the inlet and outlet temperatures of cold
fluid flow, respectively. Q is the average heat transfer rate in the HE and can be determined
by the following equations:
Q + Qc
Q= h (4)
2
The heat transfer rates of hot flow Qh and cold flow Qc were calculated from the
following equations:
.
Qh = mh C p,h ( Th,in − Th,out ) (5)
.
Qc = mc C p,c ( Tc,out − Tc,in ) (6)
. .
where mh and mc are the mass flow rates of hot and cold fluid flows, and Cp,h and Cp,c are
their specific heat capacities, respectively.
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 7 of 14

𝑄 = 𝑚 𝐶 , (𝑇 , −𝑇, ) (6)
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 7 of 14
where 𝑚 and 𝑚 are the mass flow rates of hot and cold fluid flows, and Cp,h and Cp,c
are their specific heat capacities, respectively.

4. Results
4. Results andand Discussion
Discussion
In Figure
In Figure 4, we
4, we compare
compare the impact
the impact of nanofluid
of nanofluid concentration
concentration on theon the U for
U value value for
PHEPHEandandSTHE
STHEat co-current and and
at co-current counter-current flows.flows.
counter-current The nanofluid fluid rate
The nanofluid and
fluid rate and
temperature
temperature areare
8 L/min
8 L/minandand °C,◦ C,
55 55 respectively. It shows
respectively. It showsthat PHE
that PHEcreates
createsa ahigher
higherUU value
value
thanthan
STHESTHE at different
at different concentrations.However,
concentrations. However,whenwhenthe
thenanofluid
nanofluid concentration
concentration is low,
is low, nanofluid
nanofluid concentration
concentration changes
changes do not dosignificant
not significant difference
difference in theinU the
value U compared
value to
compared to pure
pure water water (Nanofluid
(Nanofluid concentration
concentration = 0).although
= 0). Finally, Finally, although counter-current
counter-current flow increases
flow
theincreases
amount theof Uamount
for bothof PHE
U forand
bothSTHE,
PHE and STHE,
the flow the flow
pattern haspattern
a higherhasimpact
a higher
on the U
impact on the U value of PHE
value of PHE than the STHE. than the STHE.

Figure 4. Comparison of U value for PHE and STHE at different NF concentrations.

Figure 4. Comparison of U value for PHE and STHE at different NF concentrations.

Figure 5 illustrates
Figure the impact
5 illustrates of nanofluid
the impact flow rate
of nanofluid flowon U values
rate of PHEofand
on U values PHE STHE
and STHE
at aatnanofluid concentration of 10 mg/L and nanofluid temperatures of 55
a nanofluid concentration of 10 mg/L and nanofluid temperatures of 55 C. It reveals °C. It reveals
◦
that for for
that bothboth
PHEPHEand and
STHE, an increase
STHE, in nanofluid
an increase flow rate
in nanofluid enhances
flow the amount
rate enhances theofamount
theofU.the
However, the effect of flow rate on the U value of PHE is greater
U. However, the effect of flow rate on the U value of PHE is greater than than that of that of
STHE. It can be explained by the hot flow regime and physical structure of PHE and
STHE. It can be explained by the hot flow regime and physical structure of PHE and STHE.
STHE. Based on Table 2, the internal diameter of tubes in the STHE, in which nanofluid
Based on Table 2, the internal diameter of tubes in the STHE, in which nanofluid as a hot
as a hot stream flows in it, is 4 mm. Furthermore, the STHE has 30 tubes, and conse-
stream flows in it, is 4 mm. Furthermore, the STHE has 30 tubes, and consequently, the
quently, the Reynolds number of the hot stream for maximum flow rate 8 L/min is about
Reynolds number of the hot stream for maximum flow rate 8 L/min is about 1415, which
1415, which is lower than the critical Reynolds number (about 2300) for the transition
is lower than the critical Reynolds number (about 2300) for the transition from laminar
from laminar into turbulent. Therefore, for all of the flow rates in the experiment, the
into turbulent. Therefore, for all of the flow rates in the experiment, the flow regime for
flow regime for nanofluid as a hot stream in the STHE is laminar. However, the existence
nanofluid as a hot stream in the STHE is laminar. However, the existence of grooves on
of grooves on the plates of PHE raises the probability of turbulent flow. The turbulent
the plates
regime raisesofthe
PHE raises
heat the probability
transfer of turbulent
coefficient and, flow. The
consequently turbulent
U value. regime raises
In addition, in the
heat transfer coefficient and, consequently U value. In addition, in
contrast to the case of STHE, in the case of PHE, an increase in flow rate decreases the contrast to the case of
STHE, in the case of PHE, an increase in flow rate decreases the slope
slope of the “U-flow rate” diagram. As a result, when the flow rate increases, the impact of the “U-flow rate”
diagram.
of the flow rateAsona result, whendecreases,
the U value the flow rate
and we increases,
can say the
thatimpact
there isof the flow
a critical rate
flow on the U
rate
value decreases, and we can say that there is a critical flow rate for amplification of the U
value of a PHE, and the amount of this critical flow rate is smaller than the STHE. After
this critical flow rate, a saturation condition occurs.
Figure 6 compares the performance of PHE and STHE at different temperatures of the
Ag-H2 O nanofluid. The nanofluid flow rate and concentration are 8 L/min and 10 mg/L,
respectively. We reveal that in the whole temperature domain, PHE has higher performance
than STHE. As well as, when the fluid temperature increases from 36 to 56 ◦ C, there is
 Energies 2023, 16, 1854 8 of 14

a slight increase in the overall heat transfer of both PHE and STHE. Furthermore, for
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 counter-current flow, the effect of nanofluid temperature on the enhancement8 of of U
14 is more

remarkable than the co-current flow. Finally, the comparison of the results from Figures 4–6
declare that when the nanofluid concentration is below as seen for a conventional fluid,
for among
amplification of the U value
the characteristics of a PHE, and the
of concentration, inletamount of this and
temperature, critical flow rate
volume flowisrate, the
smaller than the
nanofluid STHE.
flow rate After thishighest
has the criticalimpact
flow rate,
on athe
saturation
U value.condition occurs.

Figure 2

Figure 5. Impact
Figure of NFofflow
5. Impact rate on
NF flow U on
rate value for PHE
U value forand
PHESTHE.
and STHE.

Figure 6 compares the performance of PHE and STHE at different temperatures of

the Ag-H2O nanofluid. The nanofluid flow rate and concentration are 8 L/min and 10
mg/L, respectively. We reveal that in the whole temperature domain, PHE has higher
performance than STHE. As well as, when the fluid temperature increases from 36 to 56
°C, there is a slight increase in the overall heat transfer of both PHE and STHE. Fur-
thermore, for counter-current flow, the effect of nanofluid temperature on the enhance-
ment of U is more remarkable than the co-current flow. Finally, the comparison of the
results from Figs. 4–6 declare that when the nanofluid concentration is below as seen for a
conventional fluid, among the characteristics of concentration, inlet temperature, and
volume flow rate, the nanofluid flow rate has the highest impact on the U value.
Figure 7 shows the effects of NF concentration and flow rate on the electrical power
consumption of the pump for PHE and STHE. The nanofluid temperature is 55 °C. Since
the nanofluid concentration is low, it has a negligible impact on power consumption. The
reason behind this is a lower concentration of nanofluid has a negligible effect on the in-
crease of the fluid viscosity, and below nanofluid concentration does not raise the power
consumption significantly. In addition, Figure 7 released that for the same flow rate, both
PHE and STHE have almost the same pump power consumption, and increasing the
nanofluid flow rate from 2 L/min to 8 L/min promotes the electrical power consumption
of the pump.

Figure 6 Figure 6. Performance of PHE and STHE at different temperatures of Ag-H2 O NF.

Figure 7 shows the effects of NF concentration and flow rate on the electrical power
consumption of the pump for PHE and STHE. The nanofluid temperature is 55 ◦ C. Since
the nanofluid concentration is low, it has a negligible impact on power consumption. The
reason behind this is a lower concentration of nanofluid has a negligible effect on the
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 9 of 14

increase of the fluid viscosity, and below nanofluid concentration does not raise the power
consumption significantly. In addition, Figure 7 released that for the same flow rate, both
PHE and STHE have almost the same pump power consumption, and increasing the
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 nanofluid flow rate from 2 L/min to 8 L/min promotes the electrical power consumption
10 of 14
of the pump.

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Electrical
Electricalpower
powerconsumption
consumptionof of
thethe
pump forfor
pump PHE andand
PHE STHE.
STHE.

In Figure
As mentioned8, theinheat
Figuretransfer
5, forcosts
all theofflow
PHErates
and STHE
in the are compared
experiment, theforflow
co-current
regime and
counter-current
for nanofluid as flows. Economic
a hot stream in thecomparison is doneHowever,
STHE is laminar. based on the
the existence
cost of construction
of grooves and
on the platesof
installation of each
PHE heat
makes turbulent flow
exchanger. It is and
wortha turbulent
mentioning regime raise
that, the on
based heatthetransfer
results in
coefficient
Figure 7, forand,
theconsequently
same flow rate, U value.Now
both PHEwe andwant
STHE to find
haveout the change
almost the samein apump
flow re-
power
gime from laminar to turbulent in STHE and how influences U value.
consumption. Consequently, the electricity cost is almost the same for both heat exchangers For this purpose,
using vortex generator
and therefore is used in in
it is not included thetheinlet of STHEcomparison
economic tubes to make of the turbulent flow andAlso,
heat exchangers.
the experiments were repeated. In Figure 9, the U values are depicted
the cost of nanofluid synthesis and preparation (32 $) was the same for both heat exchangersfor STHE with and
without vortex generators. It can be seen that turbulent flow created
and therefore it also is not included in the economic comparison of the heat exchangers. by vortex generators
increases
STHE and thePHE
U values of STHE for
construction andboth co-currentcosts
installation and were
counter-current
470 $ andflows.
300 $,However,
respectively.
Therefore, considering the U values of heat exchangers corresponded tointhe
they are lower than the corresponding U values of PHE. Small plates gap themaximum
PHE
structure increases the fluid velocity flows between plates
nanofluid flow rate (8 L/min) and maximum nanofluid temperature (55 C) which of PHE compared ◦ with the are
flow velocities
presented inside 4,
in Figure thetheSTHE
coststubes.Higher
per unit of U velocities
value for raise
PHEtheand
heatSTHE
transfer
arecoefficient
calculated. It
and,
reveals that the costs per unit of U value for a PHE are significantly smallerplates
consequently U value. Furthermore, in the case of NF, the small gap between than that
in PHE structures
of STHE. In addition, strengthens
compared thewithpossibility of creating aflow,
the counter-current chain-like structure regime
the co-current of
nanoparticles similar to a thermal bridge by NPs between plates. Also, it is expected that
raises heat transfer costs. Therefore, from an economic point of view and in conventional
as the NF concentration increases the impact of creating a chain-like structure of NPs
applications, it is more affordable to use PHE instead of STHE. Of course, it is worth
between the plates of PHE on the enhancement of the U value increases.
mentioning that for specific applications like corrosive liquids or very high pressures, using
STHE is more suitable than PHE because of easy maintenance, repairing, and cleaning.
As mentioned in Figure 5, for all the flow rates in the experiment, the flow regime for
nanofluid as a hot stream in the STHE is laminar. However, the existence of grooves on the
plates of PHE makes turbulent flow and a turbulent regime raise the heat transfer coefficient
and, consequently U value.Now we want to find out the change in a flow regime from
laminar to turbulent in STHE and how influences U value. For this purpose, using vortex
generator is used in the inlet of STHE tubes to make the turbulent flow and the experiments
were repeated. In Figure 9, the U values are depicted for STHE with and without vortex
generators. It can be seen that turbulent flow created by vortex generators increases the U
 Energies 2023, 16, 1854 10 of 14

values of STHE for both co-current and counter-current flows. However, they are lower
than the corresponding U values of PHE. Small plates gap in the PHE structure increases
the fluid velocity flows between plates of PHE compared with the flow velocities inside
the STHE tubes.Higher velocities raise the heat transfer coefficient and, consequently U
value. Furthermore, in the case of NF, the small gap between plates in PHE structures
strengthens the possibility of creating a chain-like structure of nanoparticles similar to a
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 11 of 14
thermal bridge by NPs between plates. Also, it is expected that as the NF concentration
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 increases the impact of creating a chain-like structure of NPs between the plates11ofofPHE
14 on

the enhancement of the U value increases.

Figure 8. Comparison of heat transfer costs for PHE and STHE.

Figure 8. Comparison of heat transfer costs for PHE and STHE.
Figure 8. Comparison of heat transfer costs for PHE and STHE.

Figure 9. Comparison
Figure of theofUthe
9. Comparison values for STHE
U values with and
for STHE without
with vortex generators.
and without vortex generators.
Figure 9. Comparison of the U values for STHE with and without vortex generators.
5. Conclusions
5.AConclusions
thermal and economic comparative investigation was done between a PHE and an
STHE with the same
A thermal heat
and transfercomparative
economic area and material characteristics
investigation was donein the presence
between of low
a PHE and an
concentrations
STHE with theof Ag-H
same2O nanofluid.
heat The findings
transfer area of this
and material study can beinsummarized
characteristics the presence be-
of low
low:concentrations of Ag-H2O nanofluid. The findings of this study can be summarized be-
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 11 of 14

5. Conclusions
A thermal and economic comparative investigation was done between a PHE and an
STHE with the same heat transfer area and material characteristics in the presence of low
concentrations of Ag-H2 O nanofluid. The findings of this study can be summarized below:
• PHE creates a higher U value than the STHE at various NF concentrations. The main
reason is the existence of grooves on the plates of PHE, which raises the probability of
turbulent flow compared to laminar flow in the STHE.
• Low nanofluid concentrations have a negligible impact on the enhancement of the U
value of both PHE and STHE, and the nanofluid flow rate has the highest impact on
the U value, just like conventional fluid.
• Counter-current flow increases the U value for both PHE and STHE. Nevertheless, it
has a higher impact on the U value of PHE than the STHE.
• For both PHE and STHE, increasing the nanofluid flow rate enhances the amount of
the U value. Nevertheless, its impact on the PHE U value is more significant than that
of STHE.
• In the whole experiment temperature domain, the PHE shows higher performance
than STHE, and when the fluid temperature increases from 36 to 56 ◦ C, there is a slight
increase in overall heat transfer of both PHE and STHE.
• At the same flow rate, both PHE and STHE have almost the same pump power
consumption, and increasing the nanofluid flow rate increases the electrical power
consumption of the pump.
• The costs per unit of heat transfer coefficient for PHE are significantly smaller than
that of STHE.
• Using a vortex generator at the inlet of STHE tubes for making turbulent flow dra-
matically increases the U values of STHE for both co-current and counter-current
flows.
• Although turbulent flow increases the U values of STHE, they are lower than the
corresponding U values of PHE. Small plates gap in PHE structure which cause higher
velocities of fluid flow and create a chain-like structure of NPs between the plates of
PHE (especially at higher NF concentrations) are the main reasons for this.
Based on the findings of the present work, a thermal and economic comparative
investigation on the effect of using different nanofluids and the also effect of using highhigh-
concentrationofluids were suggested as some future research directions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.H.P. and M.G.; methodology, S.H.P., M.G. and M.B.;
formal analysis, S.H.P., M.G. and M.B.; investigation, S.H.P., M.G. and M.B.; resources, S.H.P. and
M.G.; data curation, S.H.P., M.G. and M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, S.H.P., M.G. and M.B.;
writing—review and editing, S.H.P. and M.B.; visualization, S.H.P. and M.G.; supervision, S.H.P. and
M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publica-
tion of this paper.

References
1. Masoumpour, B.; Ataeizadeh, M.; Hajabdollahi, H.; ShafieyDehaj, M. Performance evaluation of a shell and tube heat exchanger
with recovery of mass flow rate. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2021, 123, 153–165. [CrossRef]
2. Keramat, F.; Izadpanah, A.B. Thermo-hydraulic performance analysis of converging-diverging heat exchanger with inclined fins
using computational fluid dynamics. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2022, 132, 104119. [CrossRef]
3. Wang, S.; Wen, J.; Li, Y. An experimental investigation of heat transfer enhancement for a shell-and-tube heat exchanger. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 2009, 29, 2433–2438. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 12 of 14

4. Hosseini, R.; Hosseini-Ghaffar, A.; Soltani, M. Experimental determination of shell side heat transfer coefficient and pressure
drop for an oil cooler shell-and-tube heat exchanger with three different tube bundles. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2007, 27, 1001–1008.
[CrossRef]
5. Amini, R.; Amini, M.; Jafarinia, A.; Kashfi, M. Numerical investigation on effects of using segmented and helical tube fins on
thermal performance and efficiency of a shell and tube heat exchanger. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 138, 750–760. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, J.; Zhu, X.; Mondejar, M.E.; Haglind, F. A review of heat transfer enhancement techniques in plate heat exchangers. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 101, 305–328. [CrossRef]
7. Gut, J.A.W.; Pinto, J.M. Modeling of plate heat exchangers with generalized configurations. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2003, 46,
2571–2585. [CrossRef]
8. Luan, Z.J.; Zhang, J.M.; Tian, M.C.; Fan, M.X. Flow resistance and heat transfer characteristics of a new-type plate heat exchanger.
J. Hydrodyn. Ser. B 2008, 20, 524–529. [CrossRef]
9. Mansfield, E.; Tyner, K.M.; Poling, C.M.; Blacklock, J.L. Determination of nanoparticle surface coatings and nanoparticle purity
usingmicroscale thermogravimetric analysis. Anal. Chem. 2014, 86, 1478–1484. [CrossRef]
10. Reznickova, A.; Orendac, M.; Kolska, Z.; Cizmar, E.; Dendisova, M.; Svorcik, V. Copper nanoparticles functionalized PE:
Preparation, characterization andmagnetic properties. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2016, 390, 728–734. [CrossRef]
11. Stueber, D.D.; Villanova, J.; Aponte, I.; Xiao, Z.; Colvin, V.L. Magnetic nanoparticles in biology and medicine: Past, present, and
future trends. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 943. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Mohammed, L.; Gomaa, H.G.; Ragab, D.; Zhu, J. Magnetic nanoparticles for environmental and biomedical applications: A
review. Particuology 2017, 30, 1–14. [CrossRef]
13. De Crozals, G.; Bonnet, R.; Farre, C.; Chaix, C. Nanoparticles with multiple properties for biomedical applications: A strategic
guide. Nano Today 2016, 11, 435–463. [CrossRef]
14. Hofmann-Amtenbrink, M.; Grainger, D.W.; Hofmann, H. Nanoparticles in medicine: Current challenges facing inorganic
nanoparticle toxicity assessments and standardizations. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2015, 11, 1689–1694. [CrossRef]
15. Bansal, A.; Zhang, Y. Photocontrolled Nanoparticle Delivery Systems for Biomedical Applications. Acc. Chem. Res. 2014, 47,
3052–3060. [CrossRef]
16. Kim, J.; Mirando, A.C.; Popel, A.S.; Green, J.J. Gene delivery nanoparticles to modulate angiogenesis. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2017,
119, 20–43. [CrossRef]
17. Ahmad, U.; Tubia, A.; Ahmed, A.I.; Rajesh, K.; Al-Assiri, M.S.; Baskoutas, S.; Akhtar, M.S. An efficient chemical sensor based on
CeO2 nanoparticles for the detection of acetylacetone chemical. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2020, 864, 114089.
18. Lan, M.; Zhang, J.; Chui, Y.S.; Wang, P.; Chen, X.; Lee, C.S.; Kwong, H.L.; Zhang, W. Carbon Nanoparticle-based Ratiometric
Fluorescent Sensor for Detecting Mercury Ions in Aqueous Media and Living Cells. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6,
21270–21278. [CrossRef]
19. Hamidi-Asl, E.; Raoof, J.; Naghizadeh, N.; Sharifi, S.; Hejazi, M. A bimetallic nanocomposite electrode for direct and rapid
biosensing of p53 DNA plasmid. J. Chem. Sci. 2015, 127, 1607–1617. [CrossRef]
20. Hussain, M.M.; Rahman, M.M.; Asiri, A.M. Ultrasensitive and selective 4-aminophenol chemical sensor development based on
nickel oxide nanoparticles decorated carbon nanotube nanocomposites for green environment. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 53, 27–38.
[CrossRef]
21. Hamidi-Asl, E.; Palchetti, I.; Hasheminejad, E.; Mascini, M. A review on the electrochemical biosensors for determination of
microRNAs. Talanta 2013, 115, 74–83. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Thabet, A.; Mobarak, Y. The effect of cost-fewer nanoparticles on the electrical properties of polyvinyl chloride. Electr. Eng. 2017,
99, 625–631. [CrossRef]
23. Hu, S.; Zhou, Y.; Yuan, C.; Wang, W.; Hu, J.; Li, Q.; He, J. Surface-modification effect of MgO nanoparticles on the electrical
properties of polypropylene nanocomposite. High Volt. 2020, 5, 249–255. [CrossRef]
24. Gajendiran, M.; Choi, J.; Kim, S.J.; Kim, K.; Shin, H.; Koo, H.J.; Kim, K. Conductive biomaterials for tissue engineering applications.
J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2017, 51, 12–26. [CrossRef]
25. Sabr, O.H.; Kadhim, H.J.; Salman, M.M. Studying the effect of silica nanoparticles on optical properties of polyvinyl alcohol thin
films for semiconductors applications. Test Eng. Manag. 2020, 83, 11014–11019.
26. Kiarii, E.M.; Govender, K.K.; Ndungu, P.G.; Govender, P.P. The generation of charge carriers in semi-conductors—A theoretical
study. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2017, 678, 167–176. [CrossRef]
27. Wang, F.; Zhang, C.; Liu, J.; Fang, X.; Zhang, Z. Highly stable graphite nanoparticle-dispersed phase change emulsions with little
supercooling and high thermal conductivity for cold energy storage. Appl. Energy 2016, 188, 97–106. [CrossRef]
28. Fan, F.Y.; Woodford, W.H.; Li, Z.; Baram, N.; Smith, K.C.; Helal, A.; McKinley, G.H.; Carter, W.C.; Chiang, Y.M. Polysulfide Flow
Batteries Enabled by Percolating Nanoscale Conductor Networks. Nano Lett. 2014, 14, 2210–2218. [CrossRef]
29. Park, J.; Kewon, T.; Kim, J.; Jin, H.; Kim, H.Y.; Kim, B.; Joo, S.H.; Lee, K. Hollow nanoparticles as emerging electrocatalysts for
renewable energy conversion reactions. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 8173–8202. [CrossRef]
30. Liu, M.; Wang, X.; Zhu, D.; Li, L.; Duan, H.; Xu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Gan, L. Encapsulation of NiO nanoparticles in mesoporous carbon
nanospheres for advanced energy storage. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 308, 240–247. [CrossRef]
31. Ağbulut, Ü.; Sarıdemir, S. A general view to converting fossil fuels to cleaner energy source by adding nanoparticles. Int. J.
Ambient. Energy 2021, 42, 1569–1574. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 1854 13 of 14

32. Mahdi, J.M.; Nsofor, E.C. Melting enhancement in triplex-tube latent heat energy storage system using nanoparticles-metal foam
combination. Appl. Energy 2016, 191, 22–34. [CrossRef]
33. Elnaqeeb, T.; Ali Shah, N.; Vieru, D. Heat transfer enhancement in natural convection flow of nanofluid with Cattaneo thermal
transport. Phys. Scr. 2020, 95, 115705. [CrossRef]
34. Hajmohammadi, M.R.; Tork, M.H.M.A. Effects of the magnetic field on the cylindrical Couette flow and heat transfer
Energies 2023, 16, 1854
of a
14 of 14
nanofluid. Phys. Scr. 2019, 523, 234–245. [CrossRef]
35. Pourhoseini, S.H.; Ramezani-Aval, H.; Naghizadeh, N. FHD and MHD effects of Fe3 O4 -water magnetic nanofluid on the
enhancement of overall heat transfer coefficient of a heat exchanger. Phys. Scr. 2020, 95, 045705. [CrossRef]
36.
36. Sheikholeslami,
Sheikholeslami, M.; M.; Jafaryar,
Jafaryar, M.;
M.; Shafee,
Shafee, A.;A.; Li,
Li, Z.
Z. Nanoparticles
Nanoparticles for for water
water desalination
desalination in in solar
solar heat
heat exchanger.
exchanger. J.J. Therm.
Therm. Anal.
Anal.
Calorim. 2018, 134, 2295–2303.
Calorim. 2018, 134, 2295–2303. [CrossRef]
37.
37. Wei, B.; Zou,
Wei, B.; Zou,C.;C.;Li,Li, X. Experimental
X. Experimental investigation
investigation on stability
on stability and thermal
and thermal conductivityconductivity
of diathermicof diathermic
oil based TiOoil 2based TiO2
nanofluids.
nanofluids. Int. J.Transf.
Int. J. Heat Mass Heat Mass
2017,Transf. 2017, 104,
104, 537–543. 537–543.
[CrossRef]
38.
38. Gkountas,
Gkountas, A.A.; Benos, Benos, L.T.;
L.T.;Sofiadis,
Sofiadis,G.N.;G.N.; Sarris,
Sarris, I.E.I.E. A printed-circuit
A printed-circuit heat heat exchanger
exchanger consideration
consideration by exploiting
by exploiting an Al2O3- an
Al2O3-water
water nanofluid: nanofluid:
Effect ofEffect of the nanoparticles
the nanoparticles interfacial
interfacial layer onlayer
heaton heat transfer.
transfer. Therm. Therm.
Sci. Eng. Sci. Eng.2021,
Prog. Prog.22,
2021, 22, 100818.
100818. [CrossRef]
39.
39. Atashafrooz,
Atashafrooz, M. M. Effects
Effects ofof Ag-water
Ag-water nanofluid
nanofluid on on hydrodynamics
hydrodynamics and and thermal
thermal behaviors
behaviors of of three-dimensional
three-dimensional separated
separated step step
flow.
flow. Alex.
Alex. Eng.
Eng. J.J. 2018,
2018, 57,
57, 4277–4285.
4277–4285. [CrossRef]
40.
40. Harish,
Harish, R.;
R.; Sivakumar,
Sivakumar, R. Turbulent thermal convection
Turbulent thermal convectionof ofnanofluids
nanofluidsin incubical
cubicalenclosure
enclosureusing usingtwo-phase
two-phasemixture
mixturemodel.
model.Int. Int.J.
J.Mech.
Mech.Sci.
Sci.2021,
2021,190,
190,106033.
106033.[CrossRef]
41.
41. Farajollahi,
Farajollahi, B.; B.; Etemad,
Etemad, S.G.;
S.G.; Hojjat,
Hojjat,M. M. Heat
Heat transfer
transfer of of nanofluids
nanofluids in in aa shell
shell and and tube
tube heat
heat exchanger.
exchanger. Int.Int. J.J.Heat
HeatMass
MassTransf.
Transf.
2010,
2010, 53,
53, 12–17.
12–17. [CrossRef]
42.
42. Elias,
Elias, M.M.; Shahrul, I.M.; I.M.; Mahbubul,
Mahbubul,I.M.; I.M.;Saidur,
Saidur,R.;R.;Rahim,
Rahim, N.A.
N.A. Effect
Effect of of different
different nanoparticle
nanoparticle shapes
shapes on shell
on shell and andtubetube
heat
heat exchangerusing
exchangerusing different
different bafflebaffle
angles angles and operated
and operated with with nanofluid.
nanofluid. Int. J.Int.
Heat J. Heat
MassMassTransf.Transf.
2014,2014, 70, 289–297.
70, 289–297. [CrossRef]
43.
43. Bahiraei,
Bahiraei, M.;M.; Naseri,
Naseri,M.; M.;Monavari,
Monavari, A. A. Thermal-hydraulic
Thermal-hydraulic performance
performance of a nanofluid
of a nanofluid in a shell-and-tube
in a shell-and-tube heat exchanger
heat exchanger equipped
equipped
with new with new trapezoidal
trapezoidal inclined
inclined baffles: baffles: Nanoparticle
Nanoparticle shape effect.shape effect.
Powder Powder
Technol. Technol.
2022, 395, 2022,
348–359. 395,[CrossRef]
348–359.
44.
44. Anitha,
Anitha, S.;S.; Thomas,
Thomas, T.; T.; Parthiban,
Parthiban, V.; V.; Pichumani, M. What dominates heat transfer transfer performance
performance of of hybrid
hybrid nanofluid
nanofluid in in single
single 55
pass
pass shell
shell and
and tube
tube heat
heat exchanger? Adv. Adv. Powder
Powder Technol.
Technol. 2019, 30, 3107–3117. [CrossRef]
45.
45. Bahiraei,
Bahiraei, M.;M.; Monavari,
Monavari, A. A. Thermohydraulic
Thermohydraulicperformanceperformanceand andeffectiveness
effectivenessof ofaa mini
mini shell
shell and
and tube
tube heat
heat exchanger
exchanger working
working
with
with aa nanofluid
nanofluid regarding effects of fins and nanoparticle shape. Adv. Powder Technol. 4468–4480. [CrossRef]
Technol. 2021, 32, 4468–4480.
46.
46. Huang,
Huang, D.; D.; Wu,
Wu, Z.; Sunden, B. Effects of hybrid hybrid nanofluid
nanofluid mixture
mixture in in plate
plate heatheat exchangers.
exchangers. Exp. Exp. Therm. FluidFluid Sci.
Sci. 2016,
2016,72,72,
190–196.
190–196. [CrossRef]
47.
47. Taghizadeh-Tabari,
Taghizadeh-Tabari, Z.; Z.; ZeinaliHeris,
ZeinaliHeris, S.; S.; Moradi,
Moradi, M.; M.; Kahani,
Kahani, M. M. The
The study
study on application
application of TiO2/water
TiO2 /water nanofluid
nanofluid in in plate
plate
heatexchanger
heatexchanger of of milk
milk pasteurization
pasteurization industries.
industries. Renew.
Renew. Sustain.
Sustain. Energy
Energy Rev.
Rev. 2016,
2016, 58,58, 1318–1326.
1318–1326. [CrossRef]
48.
48. Barzegarian,
Barzegarian, B.; B.; Keshavarz
Keshavarz Moraveji,
Moraveji, M.;M.; Aloueyan,
Aloueyan, A. A. Experimental
Experimental investigation
investigation on on heat
heat transfer
transfer characteristics
characteristics andand pressure
pressure
drop
drop ofof BPHE
BPHE (brazed
(brazed plateplate heat
heat exchanger)
exchanger) using TiO2-water nanofluid. Exp. Therm. Fluid Fluid Sci.
Sci. 2016,
2016, 74,
74, 11–18.
11–18. [CrossRef]
49.
49. Bhattad,
Bhattad, A.; A.;Sarkar,
Sarkar,J.;J.;Ghosh,
Ghosh, P. P.
Heat
Heat transfer
transfercharacteristics
characteristics of plate heatheat
of plate exchanger
exchangerusingusinghybrid nanofluids:
hybrid Effect of
nanofluids: nano-
Effect of
particle mixture
nanoparticle ratio.ratio.
mixture Heat Mass Transf.
Heat Mass 2020, 2020,
Transf. 56, 2457–2472.
56, 2457–2472. [CrossRef]
50.
50. Hajabdollahi,
Hajabdollahi, H.; Ataeizadeh, M.; M.; Masoumpour,
Masoumpour,B.; B.;ShafieyDehaj,
ShafieyDehaj,M. M.Comparison
Comparisonofofthe the effect
effect of of various
various nanoparticle
nanoparticle shapes
shapes on
on optimal
optimal design
design of plate
of plate heatheat exchanger.
exchanger. HeatHeat Transf.
Transf. Res.Res. 2021,
2021, 52, 52, 29–47.
29–47. [CrossRef]
51.
51. Gürbüz,
Gürbüz, E.Y.;
E.Y.; Sözen,
Sözen, A.; A.; Variyenli,
Variyenli, H.I.; Khanlari,
Khanlari, A.; A.; Tuncer,
Tuncer, A.D. A comparative study on utilizing utilizing hybrid-type
hybrid-type nanofluid
nanofluid in in
plate
plate heat
heat exchangers
exchangers with with different number of plates. J. Braz. Soc. Soc. Mech.
Mech. Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng.2020,
2020,42, 42,524.
524. [CrossRef]
52.
52. Sözen, Khanları,A.;
Sözen, A.; Khanları, A.;Çiftçi,
Çiftçi,E.;E.; Sözen,
Sözen, A. Heat
A. Heat transfer
transfer enhancement
enhancement of heat
of plate plateexchanger
heat exchangerutilizingutilizing kaolin-including
kaolin-including working
working fluid. Energy
fluid. J. Power J. Power2019,
Energy2019, 233, 626–634.
233, 626–634. [CrossRef]
53.
53. Buszewski,
Buszewski,B.; B.;Rafi
Rafiſska,
ska, K.;
K.; Pomastowski,
Pomastowski, P.; P.; Walczak,
Walczak,J.; J.;Rogowska,
Rogowska, A. A. Novel
Novel aspects of silver nanoparticles functionalizationfunctionalization.
Colloids
Colloids Surf.
Surf. A A Physicochem.
Physicochem. Eng. Eng. Asp.
Asp.2016,
2016,506,
506,170–178.
170–178. [CrossRef]
54.
54. Guo,
Guo, Z.;
Z.; Chen, G.; Zeng, G.; G.; Yan,
Yan,M.;M.;Huang,
Huang,Z.; Z.;Jiang,
Jiang,L.;L.;Peng,
Peng,C.;C.;Wang,
Wang, J.; J.; Xiao,
Xiao, Z. Z.
AreAre silver
silver nanoparticles
nanoparticles always
always toxic toxic in
in the
the presence
presence of environmental
of environmental anions?
anions? Chemosphere2016,
Chemosphere 2016, 171,171, 318–323.
318–323. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55.
55. Pourhoseini, Naghizadeh, N.;
Pourhoseini, S.H.; Naghizadeh, N.;Hoseinzadeh,
Hoseinzadeh,H.H.Effect Effectofof silver-water
silver-water nanofluid
nanofluid on onheatheat transfer
transfer performance
performance of a of a plate
plate heat
heat exchanger:
exchanger: An experimental
An experimental and theoretical
and theoretical study. study.
Powder Powder Technol.
Technol. 2018,2018, 332, 279–286.
332, 279–286. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
Note: The
The statements,
statements, opinions
opinions and
and data
data contained
contained in
in all
all publications
publications are
are solely
solely those
those of
of the
the individual
individual
author(s)
author(s) and contributor(s) and
and contributor(s) andnotnotof
ofMDPI
MDPIand/or
and/orthe
theeditor(s).
editor(s).MDPI
MDPIand/or
and/orthe
theeditor(s)
editor(s)disclaim
disclaimresponsibility
responsibilityfor
for any
any injury
injury to
to people
people or or property
property resulting
resulting from
from any
any ideas,
ideas, methods,
methods, instructions
instructions or or products
products referred
referred to the
to in in the content.
content.