A comprehensive review on minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) in machining processes using nano-cutting fluids

  • Zafar SaidEmail author
  • Munish Gupta
  • Hussien Hegab
  • Neeti Arora
  • Aqib Mashood Khan
  • Muhammad Jamil
  • Evangelos Bellos


The cutting fluid is significant in any metal cutting operation, for cooling the cutting tool and the surface of the workpiece, by lubricating the tool-workpiece interface and removing chips from the cutting zone. Recently, many researchers have been focusing on minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) among the numerous methods existing on the application of the coolant as it reduces the usage of coolant by spurting a mixture of compressed air and cutting fluid in an improved way instead of flood cooling. The MQL method has been demonstrated to be appropriate as it fulfills the necessities of ‘green’ machining. In the current study, firstly, various lubrication methods were introduced which are used in machining processes, and then, basic machining processes used in manufacturing industries such as grinding, milling, turning, and drilling have been discussed. The comprehensive review of various nanofluids (NFs) used as lubricants by different researchers for machining process is presented. Furthermore, some cases of utilizing NFs in machining operations have been reported briefly in a table. Based on the studies, it can be concluded that utilizing NFs as coolant and lubricant lead to lower tool temperature, tool wear, higher surface quality, and less environmental dangers. However, the high cost of nanoparticles, need for devices, clustering, and sediment are still challenges for the NF applications in metalworking operations. At last, the article identifies the opportunities for using NFs as lubricants in the future. It should be stated that this work offers a clear guideline for utilizing MQL and MQL-nanofluid approaches in machining processes. This guideline shows the physical, tribological, and heat transfer mechanisms associated with employing such cooling/lubrication approaches and their effects on different machining quality characteristics such as tool wear, surface integrity, and cutting forces.


Nanofluids MQL Lubricants Machining processes Cutting fluid 



Minimum quantity lubrication


Liquid nitrogen


Near-dry machining


Minimum quantity cooling


Physical vapor deposition


Diamond-like carbon




Multi-walled carbon nanotubes


Aluminum oxide


Copper (II) oxide


Scale of acidity


Bacterial foraging optimization


Particle swarm optimization


Small quantity cooling lubrication


Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate


Sodium lauryl sulfate


Titanium dioxide


Molybdenum disulfide


Nanofluid-minimum quantity lubrication.


Funding information

The University of Sharjah, Projects #18020406118, provided financial support.


  1. 1.
    Ghadimi A, Saidur R, Metselaar H (2011) A review of nanofluid stability properties and characterization in stationary conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf 54(17):4051–4068Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mia M, Khan MA, Dhar NR (2017) High-pressure coolant on flank and rake surfaces of tool in turning of Ti-6Al-4V: investigations on surface roughness and tool wear. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90(5-8):1825–1834Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ezugwu EO, Bonney J, Da Silva RB, Cakir O (2007) Surface integrity of finished turned Ti–6Al–4V alloy with PCD tools using conventional and high pressure coolant supplies. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 47(6):884–891Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang C, Zhang S, Yan X, Zhang Q (2016) Effects of internal cooling channel structures on cutting forces and tool life in side milling of H13 steel under cryogenic minimum quantity lubrication condition. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83(5-8):975–984Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klocke F, Eisenblätter G (1997) Dry cutting. CIRP Ann Manuf Technols 46(2):519–526Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krolczyk G et al (2017) Dry cutting effect in turning of a duplex stainless steel as a key factor in clean production. J Clean Prod 142:3343–3354Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boswell B, Islam MN, Davies IJ, Pramanik A (2017) Effect of machining parameters on the surface finish of a metal matrix composite under dry cutting conditions. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 231(6):913–923Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kishawy H, Hegab H, Saad E (2018) Design for sustainable manufacturing: Approach, implementation, and assessment. Sustainability 10(10):3604Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kamata Y, Obikawa T (2007) High speed MQL finish-turning of Inconel 718 with different coated tools. J Mater Process Technol 192:281–286Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liao Y-S, Liao C-H, Lin H-M (2017) Study of oil-water ratio and flow rate of MQL fluid in high speed milling of Inconel 718. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 18(2):257–262Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaynak, Y., A. Gharibi, and M. Ozkutuk, Experimental and numerical study of chip formation in orthogonal cutting of Ti-5553 alloy: the influence of cryogenic, MQL, and high pressure coolant supply. Int J Adv Manuf Technol, 2017: p. 1–18Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cabanettes F, Faverjon P, Sova A, Dumont F, Rech J (2017) MQL machining: from mist generation to tribological behavior of different oils. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90(1–4):1119–1130Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pervaiz S, Anwar S, Qureshi I, Ahmed N (2019) Recent advances in the machining of titanium alloys using minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) based techniques. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology 6(1):133–145Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shokrani A, Dhokia V, Newman ST (2012) Environmentally conscious machining of difficult-to-machine materials with regard to cutting fluids. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 57:83–101Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shokrani A, Dhokia V, Newman ST (2016) Investigation of the effects of cryogenic machining on surface integrity in CNC end milling of Ti–6Al–4V titanium alloy. J Manuf Process 21:172–179Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srikant R et al (2009) Applicability of cutting fluids with nanoparticle inclusion as coolants in machining. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part J: J Eng Trib 223(2):221–225Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raj B, Angayarkanni S, Philip J (2017) Nanofluids for Efficient Heat Transfer Applications. Nanotechnol Energy Sustain:997–1028Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sahu NK, Andhare AB, Raju RA (2017) Evaluation of performance of nanofluid using multiwalled carbon nanotubes for machining of Ti–6AL–4V. Mach Sci Technol:1–17Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prasad MG, Raaj AA, Kumar RR, Gladson F, Gautham M (2016, September) Optimization of Machining Parameters of Milling Operation by Application of Semi-synthetic oil based Nano cutting Fluids. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 149, No. 1, p. 012123). IOP PublishingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daungthongsuk W, Wongwises S (2007) A critical review of convective heat transfer of nanofluids. Renew Sust Energ Rev 11(5):797–817Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chol S (1995) Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles. ASME-Publications-Fed 231:99–106Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bigdeli MB, Fasano M, Cardellini A, Chiavazzo E, Asinari P (2016) A review on the heat and mass transfer phenomena in nanofluid coolants with special focus on automotive applications. Renew Sust Energ Rev 60:1615–1633Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sheikholeslami M. and D.D. Ganji 2017 Applications of Nanofluid for Heat Transfer Enhancement. William AndrewGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Said Zafar, Mohammad Ali Abdelkareem, Hegazy Rezk, and Ahmed M. Nassef (2019) "Fuzzy modeling and optimization for experimental thermophysical properties of water and ethylene glycol mixture for Al2O3 and TiO2 based nanofluids." Powder TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ehyaei MA, Ahmadi A, Assad MEH, Hachicha AA, Said Z (2019) Energy, exergy and economic analyses for the selection of working fluid and metal oxide nanofluids in a parabolic trough collector. Sol Energy 187:175–184Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Said Z, Rahman SMA, Assad MEH, Alami AH (2019) Heat transfer enhancement and life cycle analysis of a Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger using stable CuO/water nanofluid. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess 31:306–317Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Elcock, D. 2007 Potential impacts of nanotechnology on energy transmission applications and needs. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saidur R, Leong KY, Mohammad HA (2011) A review on applications and challenges of nanofluids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(3):1646–1668Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bhogare R.A. and B. Kothawale 2013 A review on applications and challenges of nanofluids as coolant in automobile radiator. Int J Sci Res Publ, 3(8)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khan AM, Jamil M, Ul Haq A, Hussain S, Meng L, He N (2019) Sustainable machining. Modeling and optimization of temperature and surface roughness in the milling of AISI D2 steel. Industrial Lubrication and Tribology 71(2):267–277Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sanchez JA, Pombo I, Alberdi R, Izquierdo B, Ortega N, Plaza S, Martinez-Toledano J (2010) Machining evaluation of a hybrid MQL-CO2 grinding technology. J Clean Prod 18(18):1840–1849Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eltaggaz A, Hegab H, Deiab I, Kishawy HA (2018) Hybrid nano-fluid-minimum quantity lubrication strategy for machining austempered ductile iron (ADI). Int J Interactive Des Manuf (IJIDeM) 12(4):1273–1281Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eltaggaz A, Zawada P, Hegab HA, Deiab I, Kishawy HA (2018) Coolant strategy influence on tool life and surface roughness when machining ADI. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 94(9-12):3875–3887Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hegab H, Kishawy H (2018) Towards sustainable machining of Inconel 718 using nano-fluid minimum quantity lubrication. J Manuf Mater Process 2(3):50Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Khan A, Jamil M, Mia M, Pimenov D, Gasiyarov V, Gupta M, He N (2018) Multi-objective optimization for grinding of AISI D2 steel with Al2O3 wheel under MQL. Materials 11(11):2269Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boubekri N, Shaikh V (2015) Minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) in machining: Benefits and drawbacks. J Ind Intell Inf 3:3Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sampaio MA, Machado AR, Laurindo CAH, Torres RD, Amorim FL (2018) Influence of minimum quantity of lubrication (MQL) when turning hardened SAE 1045 steel: a comparison with dry machining. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 98(1-4):959–968Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tosun N, Huseyinoglu M (2010) Effect of MQL on surface roughness in milling of AA7075-T6. Mater Manuf Process 25(8):793–798Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tasdelen B, Wikblom T, Ekered S (2008) Studies on minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) and air cooling at drilling. J Mater Process Technol 200(1-3):339–346Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tawakoli T, Hadad M, Sadeghi MH, Daneshi A, Sadeghi B (2011) Minimum quantity lubrication in grinding: effects of abrasive and coolant–lubricant types. J Clean Prod 19(17-18):2088–2099Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rahman MM, Khan MMA, Dhar NR (2009) An experimental investigation into the effect of minimum quality lubricant on cutting temperature for machinability of AISI 9310 steel alloy. Eur J Sci Res 29(4):502–508Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dudzinski D, Devillez A, Moufki A, Larrouquere D, Zerrouki V, Vigneau J (2004) A review of developments towards dry and high speed machining of Inconel 718 alloy. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 44(4):439–456Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Madanchi N, Kurle D, Winter M, Thiede S, Herrmann C (2015) Energy efficient process chain: The impact of cutting fluid strategies. Procedia CIRP 29:360–365Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sreejith PS, Ngoi BKA (2000) Dry machining: machining of the future. J Mater Process Technol 101(1-3):287–291Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jayal AD, Balaji AK, Sesek R, Gaul A, Lillquist DR (2007) Machining performance and health effects of cutting fluid application in drilling of A390. 0 cast aluminum alloy. J Manuf Process 9(2):137–146Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Obikawa T, Kamata Y, Asano Y, Nakayama K, Otieno AW (2008) Micro-liter lubrication machining of Inconel 718. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 48(15):1605–1612Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Weinert K, Inasaki I, Sutherland JW, Wakabayashi T (2004) Dry machining and minimum quantity lubrication. CIRP annals 53(2):511–537Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Carou D, Rubio EM, Davim JP (2015) A note on the use of the minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) system in turning. Industrial Lubrication and Tribology 67(3):256–261Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Boubekri N, Shaikh V, Foster PR (2010) A technology enabler for green machining: minimum quantity lubrication (MQL). J Manuf Technol Manag 21(5):556–566Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Khan MMA, Mithu MAH, Dhar NR (2009) Effects of minimum quantity lubrication on turning AISI 9310 alloy steel using vegetable oil-based cutting fluid. J Mater Process Technol 209(15-16):5573–5583Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chatha SS, Pal A, Singh T (2016) Performance evaluation of aluminium 6063 drilling under the influence of nanofluid minimum quantity lubrication. J Clean Prod 137:537–545Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sharma AK, Tiwari AK, Dixit AR (2016) Effects of Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL) in machining processes using conventional and nanofluid based cutting fluids: A comprehensive review. J Clean Prod 127:1–18Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Su Y, He N, Li L, Iqbal A, Xiao MH, Xu S, Qiu BG (2007) Refrigerated cooling air cutting of difficult-to-cut materials. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 47(6):927–933Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Varadarajan AS, Philip PK, Ramamoorthy B (2002) Investigations on hard turning with minimal cutting fluid application (HTMF) and its comparison with dry and wet turning. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 42(2):193–200Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dhar N, Islam S, Kamruzzaman M (2007) Effect of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) on tool wear, surface roughness and dimensional deviation in turning AISI-4340 steel. Gazi University J Sci 20(2):23–32Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hadad M, Sadeghi B (2013) Minimum quantity lubrication-MQL turning of AISI 4140 steel alloy. J Clean Prod 54:332–343Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Haque I (2014) Experimental evaluation of the effect of minimal quantity lubrication with different cutting fluids in drilling AISI 4340 steelGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhao H, Barber GC, Zou Q (2002) A study of flank wear in orthogonal cutting with internal cooling. Wear 253(9-10):957–962Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fallenstein F, Aurich JC (2014) CFD based investigation on internal cooling of twist drills. Procedia CIRP 14:293–298Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kamata Y, Obikawa T (2007) High speed MQL finish-turning of Inconel 718 with different coated tools. J Mater Process Technol 192:281–286Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gaitonde VN, Karnik SR, Davim JP (2012) Optimal MQL and cutting conditions determination for desired surface roughness in turning of brass using genetic algorithms. Mach Sci Technol 16(2):304–320Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Davim JP, Sreejith PS, Silva J (2007) Turning of brasses using minimum quantity of lubricant (MQL) and flooded lubricant conditions. Mater Manuf Process 22(1):45–50Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pervaiz S, Rashid A, Deiab I, Nicolescu CM (2016) An experimental investigation on effect of minimum quantity cooling lubrication (MQCL) in machining titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87(5–8):1371–1386Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Singh G, Pruncu CI, Gupta MK, Mia M, Khan AM, Jamil M et al (2019) Investigations of machining characteristics in the upgraded MQL-assisted turning of pure titanium alloys using evolutionary algorithms. Materials 12(6):999Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Itoigawa F, Childs THC, Nakamura T, Belluco W (2006) Effects and mechanisms in minimal quantity lubrication machining of an aluminum alloy. Wear 260(3):339–344Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Li KM, Liang SY (2007) Performance profiling of minimum quantity lubrication in machining. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35(3-4):226–233Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hwang YK, Lee CM (2010) Surface roughness and cutting force prediction in MQL and wet turning process of AISI 1045 using design of experiments. J Mech Sci Technol 24(8):1669–1677Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Dhar N, Islam S, Kamruzzaman M (2007) Effect of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) on tool wear, surface roughness and dimensional deviation in turning AISI-4340 steel. Gazi University J Sci 20(2):23–32Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Elmunafi MHS, Noordin MY, Kurniawan D (2015) Tool life of coated carbide cutting tool when turning hardened stainless steel under minimum quantity lubricant using castor oil. Procedia Manuf 2:563–567Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Chinchanikar S, Choudhury SK (2014) Hard turning using HiPIMS-coated carbide tools: Wear behavior under dry and minimum quantity lubrication (MQL). Measurement 55:536–548Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lopez de Lacalle LN, Lamikiz A, Sanchez JA, Cabanes I (2001) Cutting conditions and tool optimization in the high-speed milling of aluminium alloys. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 215(9):1257–1269Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    De Lacalle LL, Angulo C, Lamikiz A, Sanchez JA (2006) Experimental and numerical investigation of the effect of spray cutting fluids in high speed milling. J Mater Process Technol 172(1):11–15Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rahman M, Kumar AS, Salam MU (2002) Experimental evaluation on the effect of minimal quantities of lubricant in milling. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 42(5):539–547Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kedare SB, Borse DR, Shahane PT (2014) Effect of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) on surface roughness of mild steel of 15HRC on universal milling machine. Procedia Mater Sci 6:150–153Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Liao YS, Lin HM (2007) Mechanism of minimum quantity lubrication in high-speed milling of hardened steel. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 47(11):1660–1666Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kishawy HA, Dumitrescu M, Ng EG, Elbestawi MA (2005) Effect of coolant strategy on tool performance, chip morphology and surface quality during high-speed machining of A356 aluminum alloy. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 45(2):219–227Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Haan DM, Batzer SA, Olson WW, Sutherland JW (1997) An experimental study of cutting fluid effects in drilling. J Mater Process Technol 71(2):305–313Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rahim EA, Sasahara H (2011) An analysis of surface integrity when drilling inconel 718 using palm oil and synthetic ester under MQL condition. Mach Sci Technol 15(1):76–90Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rahim EA, Sasahara H (2011) Investigation of tool wear and surface integrity on MQL machining of Ti-6AL-4V using biodegradable oil. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 225(9):1505–1511Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    RAHIM E.A. and H. SASAHARA 2009 B11 performance of palm oil as MQL fluid during high speed Drilling of Ti-6Al-4V (advanced machining technology). In proceedings of international conference on leading edge manufacturing in 21st century: LEM21 2009.5. The Japan Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Fox-Rabinovich G, Dasch JM, Wagg T, Yamamoto K, Veldhuis S, Dosbaeva GK, Tauhiduzzaman M (2011) Cutting performance of different coatings during minimum quantity lubrication drilling of aluminum silicon B319 cast alloy. Surf Coat Technol 205(16):4107–4116Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bhowmick S, Alpas AT (2008) Minimum quantity lubrication drilling of aluminium–silicon alloys in water using diamond-like carbon coated drills. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 48(12-13):1429–1443Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tawakoli T, Hadad MJ, Sadeghi MH (2010) Influence of oil mist parameters on minimum quantity lubrication–MQL grinding process. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 50(6):521–531Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bianchi EC, Rodriguez RL, Hildebrandt RA, Lopes JC, de Mello HJ, de Aguiar PR et al (2019) Application of the auxiliary wheel cleaning jet in the plunge cylindrical grinding with Minimum Quantity Lubrication technique under various flow rates. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 233(4):1144–1156Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Sadeghi MH, Haddad MJ, Tawakoli T, Emami M (2009) Minimal quantity lubrication-MQL in grinding of Ti–6Al–4V titanium alloy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 44(5–6):487–500Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lopes JC, Ventura CE, Rodriguez RL, Talon AG, Volpato RS, Sato BK et al (2018) Application of minimum quantity lubrication with addition of water in the grinding of alumina. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 97(5-8):1951–1959Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Sadeghi MH, Hadad MJ, Tawakoli T, Vesali A, Emami M (2010) An investigation on surface grinding of AISI 4140 hardened steel using minimum quantity lubrication-MQL technique. Int J Mater Form 3(4):241–251Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Mao C, Huang Y, Zhou X, Gan H, Zhang J, Zhou Z (2014) The tribological properties of nanofluid used in minimum quantity lubrication grinding. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71(5-8):1221–1228Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Balan ASS, Vijayaraghavan L, Krishnamurthy R (2013) Minimum quantity lubricated grinding of Inconel 751 alloy. Mater Manuf Process 28(4):430–435Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Tawakoli T, Hadad MJ, Sadeghi MH, Daneshi A, Stöckert S, Rasifard A (2009) An experimental investigation of the effects of workpiece and grinding parameters on minimum quantity lubrication—MQL grinding. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 49(12-13):924–932Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zainali A, Tofighi N, Shadloo MS, Yildiz M (2013) Numerical investigation of Newtonian and non-Newtonian multiphase flows using ISPH method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 254:99–113MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Hegab H, Darras B, Kishawy HA (2018) Sustainability assessment of machining with nano-cutting fluids. Procedia Manuf 26:245–254Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Sharma P, Sidhu BS, Sharma J (2015) Investigation of effects of nanofluids on turning of AISI D2 steel using minimum quantity lubrication. J Clean Prod 108:72–79Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Su Y, Gong L, Li B, Liu Z, Chen D (2016) Performance evaluation of nanofluid MQL with vegetable-based oil and ester oil as base fluids in turning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83(9-12):2083–2089Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Soltani O, Akbari M (2016) Effects of temperature and particles concentration on the dynamic viscosity of MgO-MWCNT/ethylene glycol hybrid nanofluid: experimental study. Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 84:564–570Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Putra N, Roetzel W, Das SK (2003) Natural convection of nano-fluids. Heat Mass Transf 39(8-9):775–784Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sundar LS, Farooky MH, Sarada SN, Singh MK (2013) Experimental thermal conductivity of ethylene glycol and water mixture based low volume concentration of Al2O3 and CuO nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 41:41–46Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Oh DW, Jain A, Eaton JK, Goodson KE, Lee JS (2008) Thermal conductivity measurement and sedimentation detection of aluminum oxide nanofluids by using the 3ω method. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 29(5):1456–1461Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Wang X, Xu X, Choi S, U S (1999) Thermal conductivity of nanoparticle-fluid mixture. J Thermophys Heat Transf 13(4):474–480Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Das SK, Putra N, Thiesen P, Roetzel W (2003) Temperature dependence of thermal conductivity enhancement for nanofluids. J Heat transf 125(4):567–574Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Sharma P, Baek IH, Cho T, Park S, Lee KB (2011) Enhancement of thermal conductivity of ethylene glycol based silver nanofluids. Powder Technol 208(1):7–19Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Golubovic MN, Hettiarachchi HM, Worek WM, Minkowycz WJ (2009) Nanofluids and critical heat flux, experimental and analytical study. Appl Therm Eng 29(7):1281–1288Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Moosavi M, Goharshadi EK, Youssefi A (2010) Fabrication, characterization, and measurement of some physicochemical properties of ZnO nanofluids. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 31(4):599–605Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Moffat JR, Sefiane K, Shanahan ME (2009) Effect of TiO2 nanoparticles on contact line stick− slip behavior of volatile drops. J Phys Chem B 113(26):8860–8866Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Said Z, Sajid MH, Saidur R, Mahdiraji GA, Rahim NA (2015) Evaluating the optical properties of TiO2 nanofluid for a direct absorption solar collector. Numer Heat Transfer Part A Applications 67(9):1010–1027Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Said Z (2016) Thermophysical and optical properties of SWCNTs nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 78:207–213Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Burton G, Goo CS, Zhang Y, Jun MB (2014) Use of vegetable oil in water emulsion achieved through ultrasonic atomization as cutting fluids in micro-milling. J Manuf Process 16(3):405–413Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Sahu NK, Andhare AB, Raju RA (2018) Evaluation of performance of nanofluid using multiwalled carbon nanotubes for machining of Ti–6AL–4V. Mach Sci Technol 22(3):476–492Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Sidik NAC, Jamil MM, Japar WMAA, Adamu IM (2017) A review on preparation methods, stability and applications of hybrid nanofluids. Renew Sust Energ Rev 80:1112–1122Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Sarkar J, Ghosh P, Adil A (2015) A review on hybrid nanofluids: recent research, development and applications. Renew Sust Energ Rev 43:164–177Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Sinz C, Woei H, Khalis M, Abbas SA (2016) Numerical study on turbulent force convective heat transfer of hybrid nanofluid, Ag/HEG in a circular channel with constant heat flux. J Adv Res Fluid Mech Therm Sci 24:1), 1–1),11Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Abbasi SM, Rashidi A, Nemati A, Arzani K (2013) The effect of functionalisation method on the stability and the thermal conductivity of nanofluid hybrids of carbon nanotubes/gamma alumina. Ceram Int 39(4):3885–3891Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Suresh S, Venkitaraj KP, Selvakumar P (2011) Synthesis, Characterisation of Al2O3-Cu Nano composite powder and water based nanofluids. In: Advanced Materials Research, vol 328. Trans Tech Publications, pp 1560–1567Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Said Z, Allagui A, Abdelkareem MA, Alawadhi H, Elsaid K (2018) Acid-functionalized carbon nanofibers for high stability, thermoelectrical and electrochemical properties of nanofluids. J Colloid Interface Sci 520:50–57Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Said Z., A. Kamyar, and R. Saidur 2013 Experimental investigation on the stability and density of TiO2, Al2O3, SiO2 and TiSiO4. In IOP conference series: earth and environmental science. IOP PublishingGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Gupta M, Singh V, Kumar R, Said Z (2017) A review on thermophysical properties of nanofluids and heat transfer applications. Renew Sust Energ Rev 74:638–670Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Gupta M, Singh V, Kumar S, Kumar S, Dilbaghi N, Said Z (2018) Up to date review on the synthesis and thermophysical properties of hybrid nanofluids. J Clean Prod 190:169–192Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Shashidhara YM, Jayaram SR (2010) Vegetable oils as a potential cutting fluid—an evolution. Tribol Int 43(5-6):1073–1081Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Jia D, Li C, Zhang Y, Yang M, Wang Y, Guo S, Cao H (2017) Specific energy and surface roughness of minimum quantity lubrication grinding Ni-based alloy with mixed vegetable oil-based nanofluids. Precis Eng 50:248–262Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Zhang D, Li C, Jia D, Zhang Y, Zhang X (2015) Specific grinding energy and surface roughness of nanoparticle jet minimum quantity lubrication in grinding. Chin J Aeronaut 28(2):570–581Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Zhang Y, Li C, Jia D, Zhang D, Zhang X (2015) Experimental evaluation of the lubrication performance of MoS2/CNT nanofluid for minimal quantity lubrication in Ni-based alloy grinding. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 99:19–33Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Zhang X, Li C, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Li B, Yang M et al (2017) Lubricating property of MQL grinding of Al2O3/SiC mixed nanofluid with different particle sizes and microtopography analysis by cross-correlation. Precis Eng 47:532–545Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Hadad MJ, Tawakoli T, Sadeghi MH, Sadeghi B (2012) Temperature and energy partition in minimum quantity lubrication-MQL grinding process. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 54:10–17Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Hadad M, Sadeghi B (2012) Thermal analysis of minimum quantity lubrication-MQL grinding process. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 63:1–15Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Huang WT, Liu WS (2016) Investigations into lubrication in grinding processes using MWCNTs nanofluids with ultrasonic-assisted dispersion. J Clean Prod 137:1553–1559Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Saberi A, Rahimi AR, Parsa H, Ashrafijou M, Rabiei F (2016) Improvement of surface grinding process performance of CK45 soft steel by Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL) technique using compressed cold air jet from vortex tube. J Clean Prod 131:728–738Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    ManojKumar K, Ghosh A (2016) Assessment of cooling-lubrication and wettability characteristics of nano-engineered sunflower oil as cutting fluid and its impact on SQCL grinding performance. J Mater Process Technol 237:55–64Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Molaie MM, Akbari J, Movahhedy MR (2016) Ultrasonic assisted grinding process with minimum quantity lubrication using oil-based nanofluids. J Clean Prod 129:212–222Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Setti D, Sinha MK, Ghosh S, Rao PV (2015) Performance evaluation of Ti–6Al–4V grinding using chip formation and coefficient of friction under the influence of nanofluids. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 88:237–248Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Sinha MK, Madarkar R, Ghosh S, Rao PV (2017) Application of eco-friendly nanofluids during grinding of Inconel 718 through small quantity lubrication. J Clean Prod 141:1359–1375Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Wang Y, Li C, Zhang Y, Yang M, Zhang X, Zhang N, Dai J (2017) Experimental evaluation on tribological performance of the wheel/workpiece interface in minimum quantity lubrication grinding with different concentrations of Al2O3 nanofluids. J Clean Prod 142:3571–3583Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Wang Y, Li C, Zhang Y, Yang M, Li B, Jia D et al (2016) Experimental evaluation of the lubrication properties of the wheel/workpiece interface in minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) grinding using different types of vegetable oils. J Clean Prod 127:487–499Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Zhang Y, Li C, Jia D, Zhang D, Zhang X (2015) Experimental evaluation of MoS2 nanoparticles in jet MQL grinding with different types of vegetable oil as base oil. J Clean Prod 87:930–940Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Uysal A, Demiren F, Altan E (2015) Applying minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) method on milling of martensitic stainless steel by using nano MoS2 reinforced vegetable cutting fluid. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 195:2742–2747Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Maheswaran R, Sunil J (2016) Effect of nano sized garnet particles dispersion on the viscous behavior of extreme pressure lubricant oil. J Mol Liq 223:643–651Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Sayuti M, Sarhan AA, Hamdi M (2014) Performance Predictions of Using Novel SiO2 Nanolubrication in End-milling of Aerospace AL 6061-T6 alloy–ANFIS Modeling Approach. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer. Science 2Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Khan Aqib Mashood, Muhammad Jamil, Konstantinos Salonitis, Shoaib Sarfraz, Wei Zhao, Ning He, Mozammel Mia, and GuoLong Zhao (2019) "Multi-objective optimization of energy consumption and surface quality in nanofluid SQCL assisted face milling." Energies 12, no. 4 : 710Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Najiha MS, Rahman MM, Kadirgama K (2016) Performance of water-based TiO2 nanofluid during the minimum quantity lubrication machining of aluminium alloy, AA6061-T6. J Clean Prod 135:1623–1636Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Pham MQ, Yoon HS, Khare V, Ahn SH (2014) Evaluation of ionic liquids as lubricants in micro milling–process capability and sustainability. J Clean Prod 76:167–173Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Rahmati B, Sarhan AA, Sayuti M (2014) Morphology of surface generated by end milling AL6061-T6 using molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) nanolubrication in end milling machining. J Clean Prod 66:685–691Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Amrita M, Shariq SA (2014) Experimental investigation on application of emulsifier oil based nano cutting fluids in metal cutting process. Procedia Eng 97:115–124Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Khalil A., M. Ali, and A.J.P.M. Azmi 2015 Effect of Al2O3 nanolubricant with SDBS on tool wear during turning process of AISI 1050 with minimal quantity lubricant. 2: p. 130–134Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Jamil M, Khan AM, Hegab H, Gong L, Mia M, Gupta MK, He N (2019) Effects of hybrid Al2O3-CNT nanofluids and cryogenic cooling on machining of Ti–6Al–4V. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 102(9-12):3895–3909Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Behera BC, Ghosh S, Rao PV (2016) Application of nanofluids during minimum quantity lubrication: A case study in turning process. Tribol Int 101:234–246Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Gupta MK, Sood PK, Sharma VS (2016) Optimization of machining parameters and cutting fluids during nano-fluid based minimum quantity lubrication turning of titanium alloy by using evolutionary techniques. J Clean Prod 135:1276–1288Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Chan CY, Lee WB, Wang H (2013) Enhancement of surface finish using water-miscible nano-cutting fluid in ultra-precision turning. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 73:62–70Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Paturi UMR, Maddu YR, Maruri RR, Narala SKR (2016) Measurement and analysis of surface roughness in WS2 solid lubricant assisted minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) turning of Inconel 718. Procedia Cirp 40:138–143Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Behera BC, Ghosh S, Rao PV (2016) Application of nanofluids during minimum quantity lubrication: a case study in turning process. Tribol Int 101:234–246Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Krishna PV, Srikant RR, Rao DN (2010) Experimental investigation on the performance of nanoboric acid suspensions in SAE-40 and coconut oil during turning of AISI 1040 steel. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 50(10):911–916Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Padmini R, Krishna PV, Rao GKM (2016) Effectiveness of vegetable oil based nanofluids as potential cutting fluids in turning AISI 1040 steel. Tribol Int 94:490–501Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Sharma J, Sidhu BS (2014) Investigation of effects of dry and near dry machining on AISI D2 steel using vegetable oil. J Clean Prod 66:619–623Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Sharma AK, Tiwari AK, Singh RK, Dixit AR (2016) Tribological investigation of TiO2 nanoparticle based cutting fluid in machining under minimum quantity lubrication (MQL). Materials Today: Proceedings 3(6):2155–2162Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Hegab H, Umer U, Soliman M, Kishawy HA (2018) Effects of nano-cutting fluids on tool performance and chip morphology during machining Inconel 718. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96(9-12):3449–3458Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Hegab H, Umer U, Deiab I, Kishawy H (2018) Performance evaluation of Ti–6Al–4V machining using nano-cutting fluids under minimum quantity lubrication. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95(9-12):4229–4241Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Hegab H, Kishawy HA, Gadallah MH, Umer U, Deiab I (2018) On machining of Ti-6Al-4V using multi-walled carbon nanotubes-based nano-fluid under minimum quantity lubrication. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 97(5-8):1593–1603Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Salimi-Yasar H, Heris SZ, Shanbedi M (2017) Influence of soluble oil-based TiO2 nanofluid on heat transfer performance of cutting fluid. Tribol Int 112:147–154Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Mosleh M, Ghaderi M, Shirvani KA, Belk J, Grzina DJ (2017) Performance of cutting nanofluids in tribological testing and conventional drilling. J Manuf Process 25:70–76Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Nam JS, Lee PH, Lee SW (2011) Experimental characterization of micro-drilling process using nanofluid minimum quantity lubrication. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 51(7-8):649–652Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Sharma AK, Tiwari AK, Dixit AR, Singh RK (2017) Investigation into performance of SiO2 nanoparticle based cutting fluid in machining process. Materials Today: Proceedings 4(2):133–141Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Sharma AK, Singh RK, Dixit AR, Tiwari AK (2016) Characterization and experimental investigation of Al2O3 nanoparticle based cutting fluid in turning of AISI 1040 steel under minimum quantity lubrication (MQL). Materials Today: Proceedings 3(6):1899–1906Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Salimi-Yasar H, Heris SZ, Shanbedi M, Amiri A, Kameli A (2017) Experimental investigation of thermal properties of cutting fluid using soluble oil-based TiO2 nanofluid. Powder Technol 310:213–220Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Lv T, Huang S, Hu X, Ma Y, Xu X (2018) Tribological and machining characteristics of a minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) technology using GO/SiO 2 hybrid nanoparticle water-based lubricants as cutting fluids. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96(5-8):2931–2942Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Sharma AK, Singh RK, Dixit AR, Tiwari AK, Singh M (2019) An Investigation on Tool Flank Wear Using Alumina/MoS 2 Hybrid Nanofluid in Turning Operation. In: Advances in Manufacturing Engineering and Materials. Springer, Cham, pp 213–219Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Sharma AK, Katiyar JK, Bhaumik S, Roy S (2019) Influence of alumina/MWCNT hybrid nanoparticle additives on tribological properties of lubricants in turning operations. Friction 7(2):153–168Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Hegab H, Kishawy HA, Umer U, Mohany A (2019) A model for machining with nano-additives based minimum quantity lubrication. Int J Adv Manuf Technol:1–16Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Hegab H, Kishawy HA (2018) Machining of Inconel 718 using nano-fluid minimum quantity lubrication. In 7th International Conference on Virtual Machining Process Technology (VMPT)Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Lee K, Hwang Y, Cheong S, Choi Y, Kwon L, Lee J, Kim SH (2009) Understanding the role of nanoparticles in nano-oil lubrication. Tribol Lett 35(2):127–131Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Hegab H (2018) Towards sustainable machining of difficult-to-cut materials using nano-cutting fluids (Doctoral dissertation)Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Hegab H, Kishawy HA, Darras B (2019) Sustainable Cooling and Lubrication Strategies in Machining Processes: A Comparative Study. Procedia Manuf 33:786–793Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Kishawy HA, Hegab H, Deiab I, Eltaggaz A (2019) Sustainability assessment during machining Ti-6Al-4V with Nano-additives-based minimum quantity lubrication. J Manuf Mater Process 3(3):61Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Hegab HA, Darras B, Kishawy HA (2018) Towards sustainability assessment of machining processes. J Clean Prod 170:694–703Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Abbas AT, Gupta MK, Soliman MS, Mia M, Hegab H, Luqman M, Pimenov DY (2019) Sustainability assessment associated with surface roughness and power consumption characteristics in nanofluid MQL-assisted turning of AISI 1045 steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 1-17Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainable Energy Development Research Group, College of EngineeringUniversity of SharjahSharjahUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringGuru Jambheshwar University of Science & TechnologyHisarIndia
  3. 3.Mechanical Design and Production Engineering DepartmentCairo UniversityGizaEgypt
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical Manufacture and AutomationNanjing University of Aeronautics & AstronauticsNanjingChina
  5. 5.Thermal Department, School of Mechanical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations