Figure 4 Percentage deviations between experimental and predicted densities. Deviations between experimental density data (ρ exp) and predicted values (ρ pred) by Equation 4 vs. mass concentration

(wt.%) for ( a ) A-TiO2/EG and ( b ) R-TiO2/EG nanofluids. Isobaric thermal expansivity, α p , and isothermal compressibility, κ T , coefficients can be determined from specific volume correlations using their respective thermodynamic LCZ696 clinical trial definitions according the following expressions: (5) (6) In Table 2, the values calculated for α p and κ T are reported for some temperatures and pressures for the base fluid (EG) and both nanofluids at two different concentrations (1.75 and 5.00 wt.%). The estimated uncertainties for α p and κ T are 4% and 2%, respectively. The α p values for both the base fluid and R-TiO2/EG and A-TiO2/EG nanofluids decrease when pressure rises (up to 9.8% for the base fluid) and increase with temperature (up to 6.6% for the base fluid). Concerning the concentration dependence, first, we have found that the α p values of nanofluids are very similar

to or lower than those of EG, achieving decreases up to 1.0% and 1.9% for A-TiO2/EG and R-TiO2/EG nanofluids, respectively. GDC941 These results are opposite to those previously found by Nayak et al. [8, 9], reporting a significant increase in this property compared to the base fluid for water-based Al2O3, CuO, SiO2, and TiO2 nanofluids. It should be mentioned that Nayak et al. have determined the isobaric thermal expansivities by measuring the bulk variation with temperature for the samples in a glass flask with a long calibrate stem. Consequently, further studies about this property are still needed on EG- or water-based nanofluids. On the other hand, the κ T values of the studied samples do not exhibit evident concentration or nanocrystalline structure dependence (or Branched chain aminotransferase these differences are within the uncertainty). The κ T values decrease when the pressure rises and increase with the temperature along the isobars for both the

base fluid and nanofluid samples, as can be seen in Table 2. In order to CHIR-99021 solubility dmso compare the volumetric behavior of the nanofluids with the ideal fluid behavior, excess molar volumes, , were calculated [10, 38]. Figure 5 shows an expansive volumetric behavior for both A-TiO2/EG and R-TiO2/EG. This behavior has also been found for other pure EG-based nanofluids, and it is contrary to that presented by nanofluids which use water or EG + water as the base fluid [28]. Excess molar volumes for A-TiO2/EG increase slightly with nanoparticle concentration ranging from 0.03 up to 0.11 cm3 mol−1, which correspond to a variation in the molar volume between 3.3% and 14.3%. Concerning R-TiO2/EG, its behavior is closer to ideal, and it is almost concentration independent with a maximum variation in volume of 4.6%. No significant temperature or pressure dependences for this property were found.