| Literature DB >> 28772910 |
Mathieu Lasfargues1,2, Graham Stead3, Muhammad Amjad4, Yulong Ding5, Dongsheng Wen6,7.
Abstract
Seeding nanoparticles in molten salts has been shown recently as a promising way to improve their thermo-physical properties. The prospect of such technology is of interest to both academic and industrial sectors in order to enhance the specific heat capacity of molten salt. The latter is used in concentrated solar power plants as both heat transfer fluid and sensible storage. This work explores the feasibility of producing and dispersing nanoparticles with a novel one pot synthesis method. Using such a method, CuO nanoparticles were produced in situ via the decomposition of copper sulphate pentahydrate in a KNO₃-NaNO₃ binary salt. Analyses of the results suggested preferential disposition of atoms around produced nanoparticles in the molten salt. Thermal characterization of the produced nano-salt suspension indicated the dependence of the specific heat enhancement on particle morphology and distribution within the salts.Entities:
Keywords: CSP; concentrated solar power; in-situ production; molten salts; nanoparticles; solar energy; specific heat capacity
Year: 2017 PMID: 28772910 PMCID: PMC5459093 DOI: 10.3390/ma10050537
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
First 16 Rows: Research papers using the dissolution, sonication and drying method to disperse the nanoparticles within the salt [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. 17th Row: Dispersion of nanoparticles through the powder mixing method [22]. 18th Row: Production of nanoparticles within molten salt using a precursor [21].
| Author | Nanoparticle | Size | Concentration | Base Fluid(s) | Measured Temperature in DSC (°C) | cp Enhancement(%) | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diameter | Length | |||||||
| Shin and Banerjee—November 2010 (IJSCS) | SiO2 | 1–20 nm | - | 1.5 wt. % | Li2CO3 + K2CO3
| 350–550 | Solid Phase: 20–42%, | [ |
| Shin and Banerjee—November 2010 (Journal of Heat Transfer) | SiO2 | 20–30 nm | - | 1.0 wt. % | BaCl2 + NaCl+CaCl2+LiCl | 495–555 | Liquid Phase: 14.5% | [ |
| Shin and Banerjee—February 2011 (IJHMT) | SiO2 | 10 nm | - | 1.0 wt. % | Li2CO3 + K2CO3 (62:38 molar ratio) | 525–555 | Liquid Phase: 19–24% | [ |
| Tiznobaik and Shin—November 2012 (IJHMT) | SiO2 | 5, 10, 30 and 60 nm | - | 1.0 wt. % | Li2CO3 + K2CO3
| 150–550 | Solid Phase: 23–28%, | [ |
| Shin and Banerjee—February 2013 (Journal of Heat Transfer) | SiO2 | 2-20 nm | - | 1.5% wt. % | Li2CO3 + K2CO3
| 150–560 | Solid Phase: 38–54%, | [ |
| Dudda and Shin—February 2013 (IJTS) | SiO2 | 5, 10, 30 and 60 nm | - | 1.0 wt. % | NaNO3 + KNO3
| 150–450 | Solid Phase: 3–10%, | [ |
| Ho and Pan—October 2013 (IJHMT) | Al2O3 | <50 nm | - | 0.016 wt. %, 0.0625 wt. %, 0.125 wt. %, 0.25 wt. %, 0.5 wt. %, 1 wt. % and 2 wt. % | NaNO3 + KNO3 + NaNO2
| 200–350 | Liquid Phase: −5.7–+19.9% | [ |
| Lu and Huang—2013 (Nanoscale Research Letters) | Al2O3 | 13 and 90 nm | - | 0.9 vol. %, 2.7 vol. % and 4.6 vol. % | NaNO3 + KNO3
| 290–340 | Liquid Phase: negative values | [ |
| Chieruzzi, et al. 2013 (Nanoscale Research Letters) | Al2O3, SiO2, SiO2-Al2O3, and TiO2 | 13 nm, 7 nm, 2–200 nm and 2 nm | - | 0.5 wt. %, 1.0 wt. % and 1.5 wt. % | NaNO3 + KNO3
| 155–295 | Solid Phase: −17–+58%, | [ |
| Liu, et al. 2013 (2nd IET Renewable Power Generation) | MWCNTs, Au | Au (5 nm and 10 nm) | - | MWCNTs (0.5 wt. %, 1 wt. % and 1.5 wt. %) | NaNO3 + KNO3
| 370–420 | Liquid Phase: up to +100% for MWCNTs and +220% for Au | [ |
| Shin and Banerjee—February 2014 (IJHMT) | Al2O3 | 10 nm | - | 1.0 wt. % | Li2CO3 + K2CO3
| 355–555 | Liquid Phase: ~32% | [ |
| Jo and Banerjee—May 2014 (ActaMaterialia) | Graphite | - | 50 nm | 0.1 wt. % | Li2CO3 + K2CO3
| Solid Phase: 250 and 400, Liquid Phase: 525 and 555 | Solid Phase: 28–40%, | [ |
| Seo and Shin-September 2014 (Micro and Nano Letters) | SiO2 | 60 nm | - | 1.0 wt. % | LiNO3 + NaNO3 + KNO3
| 150–400 | Solid and Liquid Phase: 13% | [ |
| Andreu—Cabedo, et al. 2014 (Nanoscale Research Letters) | SiO2 | 12 nm | - | 0.5 wt. %, 1.0 wt. %, 1.5 wt. %, 2.0 wt. % | NaNO3 + KNO3
| 250–450 | Liquid Phase: 3–25% | [ |
| Jo and Banerjee—September 2015 (Journal of Heat Transfer) | MWCNTs | 10–30 nm | 1.5 µm | 0.1 wt. %, 0.5 wt. %, 1 wt. % and 5 wt. % | Li2CO3 + K2CO3
| Solid Phase: 250 and 400, Liquid Phase: 525–555 | Solid Phase: 12%, | [ |
| Schuller, et al. 2015 (IJTS) | Al2O3 | 40 nm | - | 0.125%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75, 1%, 1.5% and 2% (nominal mass fraction) | NaNO3 + KNO3 | 250–450 | Liquid Phase: up to 31% | [ |
| Lasfargues, et al.—June 2015 (MDPI-nanomaterials) | CuO, TiO2 | CuO—29 nm and TiO2—34 nm | - | 0.1 wt. %, 0.5 wt. %, 1 wt. % and 1.5 wt. % | NaNO3 + KNO3
| 250–450 | Liquid Phase: up to 10% | [ |
| Lasfargues, et al.—May 2016 (Springer-J Nanopart Res) | TiO2 | TiO2—16 nm | - | 1 wt. %, 2 wt. % and 3 wt. % | NaNO3 + KNO3
| 250–450 | Liquid Phase: max 7.5% | [ |
Weight of samples used for the production of the different concentration of copper oxide nanoparticles in molten salt (the ratio of NaNO3 to KNO3 is always 60/40).
| NaNO3 (g) | KNO3 (g) | CuSO4.5H2O (wt. %) | CuSO4.5H2O (g) | Total Weight (g) | Theoretical CuO (wt. %) after Production of Nanoparticles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.9925 | 1.995 | 0.25 | 0.0125 | 5 | 0.08 |
| 2.985 | 1.99 | 0.5 | 0.025 | 5 | 0.16 |
| 2.9775 | 1.985 | 0.75 | 0.0375 | 5 | 0.24 |
| 2.97 | 1.98 | 1 | 0.05 | 5 | 0.32 |
| 2.91 | 1.94 | 3 | 0.15 | 5 | 0.98 |
| 2.85 | 1.9 | 5 | 0.25 | 5 | 1.65 |
(Molar mass of CuO–79.55 g/mol, molar mass of CuSO4.5H2O–249.69 g/mol. Reaction going to completion = 79.55/249.69 × 100 = 31.86%. For 1 wt. % of CuSO4.5H2O, the theoretical CuO in wt. % is equal to the following: (31.86 × 0.05/100)/(31.86 × 0.05/100 + 2.97 + 1.98) = 0.32).
Figure 1(A) Picture of the crucibles taken out of the furnace and left to crystallize on a sheet of stainless steel. The left crucible shows a sample of pure salt (white) (60/40 ratio–NaNO3/KNO3) whilst the next three samples (left to right) contain increasing concentrations of copper oxide calculated to be 0.32, 0.98 and 1.65 wt. %; (B) Top view of 0.98 wt. % CuO samples; (C) View of the underside of 0.98 wt. % CuO solid salt mixture.
Figure 2EDX Analysis of salt mixture (60% NaNO3 and 40% KNO3) with 1.65 wt. % CuO. The composite picture is an overlay of the SEM and the elemental analysis of the sample. The presence of aluminum come from the SEM stub.
Figure 3EDX mapping of potassium (red), sodium (yellow) and copper (orange) with several overlays to show the distribution of atoms.
Figure 4SEM images of copper oxide particles produced either through (a) wet mixing process or (b) powder mixing process. Magnification is 100.00 k.
Figure 5Specific heat capacity of the different ratios of salt tested using both the wet mixing (a) and the powder mixing (b) methods.
Figure 6Specific heat capacity of the normal binary salt mixture against the enhanced mixture with 0.75 wt. % CuO using the powder mixing method.
Melting and enthalpy of the different tested ratios of salt + nanoparticles.
| Powder Mixing (PM) | Melting Point | SD | Enthalpy of Fusion | SD | Wet Mixing (WM) | Melting Point | SD | Enthalpy of Fusion | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| °C | J/g | °C | J/g | ||||||
| 60% NaNO3 40% KNO3 | 221.49 | 0.20 | 107.25 | 2.27 | 60% NaNO3 40% KNO3 | 220.90 | 0.22 | 106.93 | 1.24 |
| 0.08 wt. % CuO | 218.29 | 0.13 | 107.84 | 0.84 | 0.08 wt. % CuO | 218.24 | 0.05 | 108.63 | 1.58 |
| 0.16 wt. % CuO | 218.01 | 0.19 | 105.23 | 1.56 | 0.16 wt. % CuO | 217.57 | 0.40 | 106.52 | 2.84 |
| 0.24 wt. % CuO | 217.91 | 0.05 | 106.53 | 1.41 | 0.24 wt. % CuO | 217.31 | 0.13 | 107.32 | 3.14 |
| 0.32 wt. % CuO | 217.91 | 0.11 | 108.02 | 1.82 | 0.32 wt. % CuO | 217.79 | 0.11 | 106.67 | 3.22 |
| 0.98 wt. % CuO | 217.64 | 0.22 | 107.19 | 2.54 | 0.98 wt. % CuO | 217.70 | 0.09 | 106.03 | 2.27 |
| 1.65 wt. % CuO | 217.69 | 0.18 | 104.80 | 1.00 | 1.65 wt. % CuO | 217.67 | 0.13 | 103.97 | 1.12 |