## 6 Conclusions  
The influences of electric field, magnetic field and thermal radiation on Maxwell nanofluid flow are studied. The schematic diagram is shown in Figure 1. The flow has been taken along \(y\)-axis where magnetic and electric fields are supplied. The modeled equations have been solved through the analytical homotopy analysis method (HAM). The influences have been shown graphically. The variation of Skin friction, Nusselt number and Sherwood number is discussed. Further, for a clearer picture, the physical parameters, namely, unsteady parameter \(\lambda\), Maxwell parameter \(\beta\), magnetic parameter \(M\), radiation parameter \(Rd\), electric parameter \(E\), thermophoresis parameter \(Nt\), Schmidt number \(Sc\), Prandtl number \(\Pr\), space dependent coefficient \((A)\) and temperature dependent coefficient \((B)\), acting on concentration \(\phi(\eta)\), velocity \(f(\eta)\) and temperature \(\theta(\eta)\), are analyzed and studied in detail. The main conclusions are as follows.  
* The magnetic parameter \(M\), has the reverse effect on velocity, which means that increasing the magnetic field value results in a decrease of the velocity of the nanofluid. This is due to the Lorentz forces, which are against the flow of the fluid.
* Increasing Schmidt number decreases the concentration profile \(\phi(\eta)\), which is consistent with previous results.
* The unsteady parameter \(\lambda\) shows decreasing behavior in velocity profile, concentration profile \(\phi(\eta)\) and temperature profile \(\theta(\eta)\) of the fluid.
* The effect of radiation \(Rd\) on temperature matches common observations. It increases the temperature of the fluid. It is also observed that high radiations cause a high temperature.
* Increasing the value of the thermophoretic parameter \(Nt\), decreases the concentration \(\phi(\eta)\) of the nanofluid.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \(Rd\) & \(\lambda\) & \(A\) & \(B\) & \(\mathbf{N_{tx}}\) & \(\mathbf{N_{tx}}\) \\  & & & **[PERSON] et al. [3] Results** & **Presents Results** \\ \hline  & & & 0.1 & 0.6631123 & 0.810743 \\  & & & 0.5 & 1.0967356 & 0.712750 \\  & & & 1.0 & 0.9541261 & 0.587160 \\  & & & 1.5 & 0.7670185 & 0.458056 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \(Sc\) & \(Nt\) & \(\lambda\) & \(\mathbf{Sh_{x}}\) & \(\mathbf{Sh_{x}}\) \\  & & & **[PERSON] et al. [3] Results** & **Present Results** \\ \hline
0.1 & & & 1.4353078 & 1.955299 \\
0.5 & & & 1.4044462 & 1.660820 \\
1.0 & & & 1.3724033 & 1.407640 \\
1.5 & & & 1.3455601 & 1.643610 \\
0.5 & & & 1.2787791 & 1.660820 \\  & 0.1 & & 1.3398008 & 0.836947 \\  & 0.5 & & 1.4044462 & 0.955299 \\  & 1.0 & & 1.4731732 & 1.107160 \\  & 1.5 & & 1.0989064 & 1.263380 \\  & 0.5 & & 1.2599294 & 0.955299 \\  & 0.1 & & 1.3403629 & 0.814646 \\  & 0.5 & & 1.4609154 & 0.844357 \\  & 1.0 & & 1.2046987 & 0.781225 \\  & 1.5 & & 1.2599294 & 0.717796 \\  & 0.5 & & 1.3199523 & 0.844357 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Variation in the Sherwood Number of dissimilar parameters \(\omega=M=EI=Rd=\Pr=\beta=0.1\).  
* The velocity of the nanofluid increases with increasing value of the electric field, but the combined effect of the electric and magnetic field produces Lorentz forces, which result in a decrease of the velocity of the fluid.
* It is noted that increasing the Deborah number decreases the velocity of the Nanofluid.  
H.K. and Z.S. modeled the problem; H.K. and [PERSON] wrote the paper; [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] made the corrections and arranged the paper; and W.K. and Z.S. solved the problem.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.