Table 6 Comparison of the TC values of some organic PCMs doped with modified and non-modifed carbon based fillers.
PCM | Carbon based filler | Doping amount (wt%) | Increase in TC (%) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Stearic acid (SA) | CNTs | 2.0 | 61.5 | |
SA | CNTs | 6.0 | 92.3 | |
SA | CNTs | 10.0 | 119.2 | |
PA | CNTs | 1.0 | 36.44 | |
PA | Oxidized CNTs | 1.0 | 39.25 | |
PA | Grafted CNTs | 1.0 | 34.11 | |
Paraffin | Tetradecyl alcohol-g-CNT | 4.0 | 239.13 | |
Paraffin | Stearyl alcohol-g-CNT | 4.0 | 243.47 | |
Paraffin | Octanol-g-CNTs | 4.0 | 234.78 | |
Lauric acid(LA) | LA-g-graphene aerogel | 5.0 | 352.10 | |
Cetyl alcohol/HDPE | Carbon nanofiber | 5.0 | 256.68 | |
Stearyl alcohol/HDPE | Expanded graphite | 3.0 | 240.69 | |
Octadecanol | Graphene | 1.5 | 44.35 | |
CA | CNTs-g-CA | 5.0 | 81.30 | This work |
PA | CNTs-g-PA | 5.0 | 88.22 | This work |
SA | CNTs-g-SA | 5.0 | 89.50 | This work |
CA | CNTs | 5.0 | 37.50 | This work |
PA | CNTs | 5.0 | 70.60 | This work |
SA | CNTs | 5.0 | 68.40 | This work |
