Fine-tuning the dispersion of active suspensions with oscillatory flows

Hakan Osman Caldag; Martin Alan Bees

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Fine-tuning the dispersion of active suspensions with oscillatory flows

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Oscillatory flows can be tuned to control drift, dispersion, mixing, and separation of gyrotactic swimmers.

desk verdict Genuinely new combination of gyrotactic dispersion and oscillatory flow; internally consistent numerics, but the headline drift predictions lean on an unvalidated wall reflection rule. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17788 v1 pith:Q4G3QVWS submitted 2025-05-23 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-phphysics.flu-dyn

Hakan Osman Caldag , Martin Alan Bees This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-phphysics.flu-dyn MSC 76Z0592C17

keywords pulsatileflowsbiofluidmechanicsTaylordispersionactivesuspensionsgyrotaxisWomersleynumberparticleseparationmixing

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a purely oscillatory pressure-driven flow in a vertical channel—Womersley flow—can be used to fine-tune the dispersion of a suspension of gyrotactic swimmers, the bottom-heavy cells that reorient under the competing action of viscous and gravitational torques. Using Lagrangian simulations of non-interacting point swimmers, it finds that the oscillation frequency controls not only axial and lateral effective diffusivity but also a non-zero mean drift, which passive tracers never exhibit under a zero-net-flux oscillation. It further reports that cells initially confined to the left and right halves of the channel can be mixed, and that species with different gyrotactic strengths acquire different drift speeds, enabling non-invasive separation. The paper also claims that the usual Eulerian closure based on generalised Taylor dispersion breaks down when the oscillation period is comparable to the cell reorientation time, roughly when $\mathrm{Wo}^2\,\mathrm{Sc}\gtrsim 1$. This matters because the same mechanism could mix or separate microorganisms in bioreactors without invasive forces.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by an individual-based microswimmer model, Eqs. (7)--(8): each cell is a point particle advected by the oscillatory channel flow plus a constant swimming velocity $V_s'\hat{\mathbf{p}}$, where the orientation angle $\theta$ evolves under gyrotactic torque $(1/2B')\cos\theta$, vorticity advection $\omega_z/2$, and rotational Brownian noise $\sqrt{2d_r'}\,dW_t$, with specular reflection at the walls. The control parameter is the Womersley number $\mathrm{Wo}=R'\sqrt{\Omega'/\nu'}$, which fixes the phase lag and shape of the velocity profile in Eq. (4). For the Eulerian comparison, the paper derives two-dimensional closed-form generalised-Taylor-dispersion expressions for the mean swimming direction $\mathbf{q}$ and diffusion tensor $\mathbf{D}$ as functions of shear rate, and feeds them into the advection--diffusion equation (11); the boundary criterion for that closure is $\mathrm{Wo}^2\,\mathrm{Sc}\sim 1$.

What would settle it

If a dilute suspension of gyrotactic algae in a vertical tube under a zero-net-flux oscillatory flow shows no centre-of-mass drift that varies with the Womersley number, or if the predicted near-coincident drift of two species at the crossover frequency does not occur, the drift and separation mechanism is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that oscillatory flows give a suspension of gyrotactic swimmers a net drift whose sign and magnitude depend on the Womersley number, and that this same knob tunes axial dispersion and cross-channel mixing. At small-to-intermediate $\mathrm{Wo}$, the cells repeatedly alternate between centre-focused downwelling states, where they sample the fast core of the flow, and wall-spread upwelling states; the asymmetry of these two states in time and orientation produces drift, which for strongly gyrotactic algae peaks near $\mathrm{Wo}=0.106$ and changes sign near $\mathrm{Wo}=0.481$. At large $\mathrm{Wo}$, the oscillatory velocity profile flattens into plug-like motion, advection can no longer organise the population, and the cells revert to their intrinsic upward swimming bias, giving a drift of about $-0.73$ in the dimensionless units used. The paper further maintains that the Eulerian generalised-Taylor-dispersion description, with its quasi-steady mean orientation and diffusion tensor, agrees with the individual-based model only in a window of $\mathrm{Wo}$ and loses validity once $\mathrm{Wo}^2\,\mathrm{Sc}\gtrsim 1$, because the flow then changes on the same time scale as cell reorientation.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative predictions hinge on the microswimmer equations (7)--(8): non-interacting point cells whose orientation obeys linear gyrotactic torque, vorticity advection, and rotational noise, and whose wall encounters are specular reflections; if real cells stick to walls, interact, or reorient differently, the predicted drift and separation speeds shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Oscillatory flows with zero mean flux can move gyrotactic cells net up or down depending on frequency; the drift peak occurs near $\mathrm{Wo}=0.106$ for the base parameters.
Axial dispersion is largest at small $\mathrm{Wo}$ and falls off roughly as $\mathrm{Wo}^{-4}$ for large swimming Péclet number; the drift sign change coincides with a small local enhancement of dispersion.
Cross-channel mixing of initially right-half particles speeds up sharply around $\mathrm{Wo}\sim 1$, giving a practical mixing window.
Species with different gyrotactic biases separate in oscillatory flow; the relative drift between two model algae vanishes at a crossover Womersley number, analogous to gas-separation crossover frequencies.
Eulerian simulations using generalised Taylor dispersion should not be used for $\mathrm{Wo}^2\,\mathrm{Sc}\gtrsim 1$; there the quasi-steady orientation averaging breaks, and Lagrangian or full orientation-resolved descriptions are needed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the model transfers to real bioreactor suspensions, pulsing the flow rate rather than changing the mean flow becomes a non-invasive control that could keep cells suspended and mixed while a zero net flux protects fragile cells from pump damage.
The predicted sign change of the excess drift with $\mathrm{Wo}$ implies a direct experimental calibration: tracking the cell cloud's centre of mass over a frequency sweep should show drift reversing near $\mathrm{Wo}\approx 0.48$ for strongly gyrotactic algae, a sharp test of the model.
The claimed breakdown of the quasi-steady Eulerian closure at $\mathrm{Wo}^2\,\mathrm{Sc}\gtrsim 1$ suggests that future continuum models should carry orientation as an explicit degree of freedom in the fast-oscillation regime, rather than averaging it out.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is the first paper I've seen that puts gyrotactic active particles into an oscillatory Womersley flow, and the core simulation results are internally consistent and honestly labeled. The combination is genuinely new—prior work did passive tracers in oscillatory flow and active particles in steady flow, but not both. The paper also delivers a new 2D generalized Taylor dispersion closure (Appendix A.2), which is real math and can be used elsewhere.

What it does well: the Lagrangian simulations reproduce the passive-particle benchmark of Lee et al., and the high-Wo drift limit matches the analytic von Mises prediction of -0.7281. That gives me confidence the numerics are not off in la-la land. The central finding—that oscillatory flows can induce net drift, enhance axial and lateral dispersion, and separate species by motility—is supported by the simulations. The paper is also candid about the GTD Eulerian breakdown when Wo^2 Sc ~ 1. The experiments in Section 2 are explicitly preliminary and only qualitative motivation; the paper doesn't oversell them.

Soft spots: the stress-test concern about the wall reflection rule is legitimate, though it's not hidden. At Wo=0.2, the Lagrangian model (specular reflection) gives upward drift while the Eulerian no-flux model gives downward drift for the same parameters. The authors attribute the difference to boundary treatment and argue specular reflection is better, citing [35], but there's no quantitative experimental test of that rule. Since the headline tuning curves in Figs. 4a-c come from the Lagrangian model, a different wall interaction—sliding, adhesion, or reorientation—could shift or reverse the predicted drift and move the separation crossover at Wo=0.383. That's the most load-bearing assumption in the paper, and it would benefit from explicit sensitivity analysis or experimental validation. Also, there are no error bars on the Langevin drift and dispersion values, and no code/data release, so the quantitative predictions are hard to independently reproduce.

Overall: the central argument holds up as a theoretical/numerical study. The paper is for applied mathematicians and fluid dynamicists working on active suspension dispersion, and for anyone designing oscillatory-flow bioreactors, though the latter should treat the numbers as indicative rather than final. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to peer review, but I'd ask for a sensitivity analysis on boundary conditions and a clearer statement about what's robust and what's model-dependent.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper investigates the dispersion, drift, mixing, and separation of gyrotactic microswimmers in a two-dimensional vertical channel driven by an oscillatory pressure gradient, i.e., Womersley flow. The authors present qualitative experiments with D. salina, an individual-based Lagrangian model (Eqs. 7-8) with specular wall reflection (Eq. 10), and an Eulerian advection-diffusion model with a generalized Taylor dispersion (GTD) closure developed in Appendix A.2. Comparing these approaches, they find that the Womersley number tunes the mean excess drift U_e, the effective axial diffusivity D_e, and the lateral mixing time t_mix; that different species can be separated near a crossover Wo approximately equal to 0.383; and that the Eulerian GTD closure breaks down when Wo^2 Sc is of order one or larger.

Significance. The central message, that oscillatory shear provides a tunable control knob for dispersion, mixing, and species separation of active suspensions, is potentially useful for bioreactor and cell-separation applications. The numerical work has credible internal checks: passive-particle simulations reproduce Lee et al.'s dispersion results (Fig. 2a), and the high-Wo drift limit approaches the analytic von Mises value -0.7281 for lambda = 2.2 (Appendix A.2 and Figs. 4a-c). The two-dimensional GTD closure is derived in closed form and checked against asymptotic limits. However, the headline quantitative predictions (drift sign and magnitude, separation crossover) are carried by the Lagrangian model, whose wall-reflection rule is not validated independently, and the experiments are only qualitative motivation. The contribution is significant if the model is taken as a predictive tool, but the claims need to be framed or tested more carefully.

major comments (3)

[§4.4, Eq. (10), Fig. 5y] At Wo = 0.2 with PéR = 2 and βR = 1, the Lagrangian and Eulerian models predict opposite signs of the excess drift U_e, and the authors attribute this to the wall treatment, stating that specular reflection (Eq. 10) is 'a better representation' of real boundaries. However, no quantitative experimental test or independent measurement of cell-wall interactions is provided for the species and flows considered. Because the sign and magnitude of U_e in Figs. 4a-c and the separation crossover Wo ≈ 0.383 in inset A depend on how cells accumulate at the walls, the central claims rest on an unvalidated boundary condition. I request either a sensitivity study (e.g., partial absorption, slip, or reorientation at walls) or an explicit treatment of the wall rule as a modeling assumption whose consequences are mapped, with the claims softened accordingly.
[§2, Figs. 1b-m] The experimental section is qualitative: only two Wo values are shown, and there are no measured drift velocities, dispersion coefficients, mixing times, or quantitative comparisons with the simulation parameters in Table 1. The abstract and conclusion present drift, separation, and tuning as findings of the study; given that the experiments only motivate the models, these results should be described as predictions of the individual-based model unless quantitative validation is added. This does not invalidate the theoretical contribution, but the wording should not imply experimental confirmation.
[§4.3, Fig. 4] The quantitative claims in Fig. 4—the location of the drift maximum at Wo = 0.106, the sign change near Wo = 0.481, the separation crossover Wo ≈ 0.383, and the local extrema in D_e and t_mix—are based on single runs of 5000 particles with no error bars or convergence tests. Given the visible stochastic noise in the curves, I ask the authors to add uncertainty estimates (e.g., multiple seeds or bootstrapped confidence intervals) or to restrict claims to features that are robust across such estimates.

minor comments (4)

[Conclusion, p. 12] The text reads 'the Womesley number, Wo'; this should be 'Womersley number.'
[Appendix A.1] The sentence 'the non-dimensional reorientation rate is dr = 1/Wo^2 Sc' should read 'rotational diffusivity' rather than 'reorientation rate,' since dr is the dimensionless rotational diffusivity.
[§4.3, first bullet] The phrase 'Strongly gravitactic particles do not accumulate in the centre and at walls as much and, therefore, have smaller drift' is ambiguous; please specify with respect to which species or parameter values this comparison is made.
[§4.1, Eq. (15)] The definitions of V and tm are introduced quickly; please define them explicitly before using them in the formula for De*.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; only a low-severity consistency-check issue in the Eulerian-Lagrangian comparison.

fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4, Appendix A.2, Table 2]
"We use q and D obtained for C. augustae (see Appendix A.2) and Lagrangian simulations use the corresponding d′ r and B′ values. ... Solutions converge rapidly; an order three truncation is suitable for most purposes. Similar to [27], the solutions are well-fitted by the curves ... Diffusion values can also be fitted by curves, with D11 = F (σ; a11, c), D12 = −σF (σ; a12, c) and D22 = F (σ; a22, c)."

The Eulerian closure q and D are not independent data: they are curve fits to a truncated Fourier solution of the same Fokker-Planck orientation equation (Eq. 20) that the Lagrangian solver integrates stochastically (Eqs. 7-8), using the same d_r′ and B′. Consequently the Eulerian-Lagrangian agreement reported in Fig. 5 (and the divergence at larger Wo) is a consistency test of the GTD approximation against a direct solver of the same micro-model, not an independent validation of the microphysics. The paper’s principal drift/separation/mixing claims are carried by the Lagrangian model and are separately benchmarked against the passive-particle results of Lee et al. [34], so this issue is confined to the comparative role of Section 4.4 and does not make the central derivation circular.

full rationale

The headline results (drift, enhanced dispersion, mixing, species separation) are produced by the individual-based Lagrangian model, Eqs. (7)-(8), which is an explicit stochastic simulation rather than a closure fitted to those outputs. Section 4.1 validates the IBM against an external passive-particle calculation (Lee et al. [34]). The Eulerian model in Section 4.4 is presented as a quasi-steady GTD closure whose q and D are derived (and then algebraically fitted) from the same orientation Fokker-Planck dynamics; the Lagrangian-Eulerian comparison is therefore a consistency check of the closure, not an independent prediction, which is a minor circularity of benchmarking but not of the paper's main claims. The wall-reflection sensitivity flagged by the skeptic is a real modelling assumption (specular reflection via Eq. (10), supported by prior literature), but it is an unvalidated boundary condition and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction; no fitted parameter is relabelled as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation nor imported uniqueness theorem is used. The high-Wo drift limit −I0(λ)/I1(λ) is an analytical consequence of the same orientation model and is used only as an internal check.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central Lagrangian results use standard stochastic microswimmer equations with literature-based parameter values for C. augustae and D. salina; no new physical entity is introduced. The Eulerian comparison adds fitted GTD coefficients for a single lambda, and the separation example adds an ad hoc strongly gyrotactic parameter set. These are the main non-bookkeeping inputs the paper supplies beyond prior literature.

free parameters (3)

GTD fitting coefficients for lambda=2.2 = Table 2 values, e.g. q1: a0=7.281e-1, a2=7.52e-2, c2=3.584e-1, c4=6.06e-2
Used in the Eulerian closure expressions for q and D in Appendix A.2. They are fitted to a truncated Fourier series solution of the GTD equations, not to experimental data, but they are free coefficients of the model.
lambda (dimensionless gyrotaxis strength) in the Table 2 fits = 2.2
The closed-form GTD approximations are constructed for a single lambda value, so the Eulerian comparison is restricted to this choice.
Strongly gyrotactic model species parameters = B'=0.3 s, d'_r=0.01 s^-1
Chosen in Table 1 for investigative purposes to exaggerate gyrotactic bias; not tied to a characterized real species.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Suspension is dilute: particles are non-interacting and hydrodynamically passive.
Stated in Section 3.2: 'The particles are assumed to occupy no volume and hydrodynamic interactions are neglected under the dilute assumption.'
domain assumption No two-way coupling: the flow is the single-phase Womersley solution with no cell-induced back-reaction.
Section 3.1 prescribes the pressure-driven flow; Section 2 notes that two-way coupling can matter for dense accumulations, so this is an acknowledged simplification.
domain assumption Gyrotactic orientation dynamics are captured by Eq. (6): gravitational torque with reorientation time B', vorticity advection, and rotational Brownian noise.
Standard Kessler-type gyrotaxis model used throughout; parameter values come from prior studies.
domain assumption Specular reflection, Eq. (10), approximates cell-wall interaction.
Authors note that boundary conditions affect cell distributions, citing refs. [26,35]; this is a modeling choice, not a measured boundary law.
domain assumption Quasi-steady GTD closure: q and D from steady linear shear are applied locally in time and space in the Eulerian model.
Section 4.4 acknowledges and tests this assumption; its breakdown for sufficiently large Wo is itself a result of the paper.
standard math Womersley flow solution, Taylor dispersion background, and stochastic calculus are valid.
Eq. (4) and the dispersion definitions are textbook results invoked without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fine-tuning the dispersion of active suspensions with oscillatory flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4G3QVWS

@misc{pith2026250517788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fine-tuning the dispersion of active suspensions with oscillatory flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4G3QVWS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17788}
}

read the original abstract

The combined impact of axial stretching and cross-stream diffusion on the downstream transport of solute is termed Taylor dispersion. The dispersion of active suspensions is qualitatively distinct: viscous and external torques can establish non-uniform concentration fields with weighted access to shear, modifying mean drift and effective diffusivity. It would be advantageous to fine-tune the dispersion for systems such as bioreactors, where mixing or particle separation can improve efficacy. Here, we investigate the dispersion of active suspensions in a vertical channel driven by an oscillatory pressure gradient - Womersley flow - using gyrotactic swimmers (bottom-heavy cells subject to viscous torques). Preliminary experimental results reveal interesting dispersion phenomena, highly dependent on the oscillation parameters, motivating theoretical investigation. Employing Lagrangian simulations, we find that oscillatory flows can induce drift and increase lateral and downstream dispersion, with periodic mixing between left and right sides. Such flows can also be used to separate species with different motile behaviour. Eulerian numerical schemes typically require an approach to averaging in orientational space, such as generalised Taylor dispersion, with assumptions on translational and rotational time scales. For an oscillatory timescale commensurate with cell dynamics, we reveal the limitations of such approximations, beyond which the averaging techniques collapse.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17788 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a) Comparison of individual-based passive particle simulations with results from Lee et al. [34]. Concentration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Distributions of C. augustae (black), D. salina (red) and strongly gyrotactic (blue, see text) particles under oscillatory flow (channels rotated π/2 anticlockwise). Row (a) gives distributions with Wo= 0.106 at a given end-ofperiod, with columns (i)-(iv) indicating periods 0, 12, 24 and 35, respectively. Rows (b)-(g) give the distributions during one period at long times for (a) Wo= 0.07, (b) Wo= 0.106, (c) Wo= 0.… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Long-time measures of (a)-(c) excess drift, (d)-(f) axial dispersion and (g)-(i) mixing time (see text) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison between Lagrangian and Eulerian model results. (a)-(x) show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[35]

The interplay between bulk flow and boundary conditions on the distribution of microswimmers in channel flow

Smitha Maretvadakethope et al. “The interplay between bulk flow and boundary conditions on the distribution of microswimmers in channel flow”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 976 (2023), A13

work page 2023
[1]

Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flowing slowly through a tube

Geoffrey Ingram Taylor. “Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flowing slowly through a tube”. In:Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 219.1137 (1953), pp. 186–203

work page 1953
[2]

On the dispersion of a solute in a fluid flowing through a tube

Rutherford Aris. “On the dispersion of a solute in a fluid flowing through a tube”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 235.1200 (1956), pp. 67–77

work page 1956
[3]

Individual and collective fluid dynamics of swimming cells

John O Kessler. “Individual and collective fluid dynamics of swimming cells”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 173 (1986), pp. 191–205

work page 1986
[4]

Advances in bioconvection

M. A. Bees. “Advances in bioconvection”. In: Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 52.1 (2020), pp. 449–476

work page 2020
[5]

Dispersion of biased swimming micro-organisms in a fluid flowing through a tube

Martin A Bees and Ottavio A Croze. “Dispersion of biased swimming micro-organisms in a fluid flowing through a tube”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 466.2119 (2010), pp. 2057–2077. 14 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 18, 2025

work page 2010
[6]

Development of suitable photobioreactor for algae production–A review

RN Singh and Shaishav Sharma. “Development of suitable photobioreactor for algae production–A review”. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16.4 (2012), pp. 2347–2353

work page 2012
[7]

Biofouling in photobioreactors for marine microalgae

Ouassim Zeriouh et al. “Biofouling in photobioreactors for marine microalgae”. In: Critical reviews in biotech- nology 37.8 (2017), pp. 1006–1023

work page 2017

Show all 39 references

[8]

Evolution of photobioreactors: a review based on microalgal perspective

Imran Ahmad et al. “Evolution of photobioreactors: a review based on microalgal perspective”. In: IOP Confer- ence Series: Materials Science and Engineering. V ol. 1142. 1. IOP Publishing. 2021, p. 012004

2021
[9]

Commercial production of microalgae: ponds, tanks, tubes and fermenters

Michael A Borowitzka. “Commercial production of microalgae: ponds, tanks, tubes and fermenters”. In: Journal of biotechnology 70.1-3 (1999), pp. 313–321

1999
[10]

Algal biofilm reactors for integrated wastewater treatment and biofuel production: a review

Donghee Hoh, Stuart Watson, and Eunsung Kan. “Algal biofilm reactors for integrated wastewater treatment and biofuel production: a review”. In: Chemical Engineering Journal 287 (2016), pp. 466–473

2016
[11]

Dispersion of swimming algae in laminar and turbulent channel flows: consequences for photobioreactors

Ottavio A Croze et al. “Dispersion of swimming algae in laminar and turbulent channel flows: consequences for photobioreactors”. In: Journal of The Royal Society Interface 10.81 (2013), p. 20121041

2013
[12]

On the longitudinal dispersion of passive contaminant in oscillatory flows in tubes

P. C. Chatwin. “On the longitudinal dispersion of passive contaminant in oscillatory flows in tubes”. en. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 71.3 (Oct. 1975). Publisher: Cambridge University Press, pp. 513–527. ISSN : 1469-7645, 0022-1120. DOI: 10.1017/S0022112075002716

1975 doi
[13]

Diffusional separation of gases by sinusoidal oscillations

U. H. Kurzweg and M. J. Jaeger. “Diffusional separation of gases by sinusoidal oscillations”. In:The Physics of Fluids 30.4 (Apr. 1987). Publisher: American Institute of Physics, pp. 1023–1025. ISSN : 0031-9171. DOI: 10.1063/1.866300

1987 doi
[14]

Enhanced heat conduction in oscillating viscous flows within parallel-plate channels

U. H. Kurzweg. “Enhanced heat conduction in oscillating viscous flows within parallel-plate channels”. en. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 156 (July 1985). Publisher: Cambridge University Press, pp. 291–300. ISSN : 1469-7645, 0022-1120. DOI: 10.1017/S0022112085002105

1985 doi
[15]

Oscillating flow and separation of species in rectangular channels

A. Hacioglu and R. Narayanan. “Oscillating flow and separation of species in rectangular channels”. In: Physics of Fluids 28.7 (July 2016). Publisher: American Institute of Physics, p. 073602. ISSN : 1070-6631. DOI: 10. 1063/1.4954316

2016
[16]

Molecular diffusion in oscillating laminar flow in a pipe

L. P. Purtell. “Molecular diffusion in oscillating laminar flow in a pipe”. en. In:Physics of Fluids 24.5 (1981), p. 789. ISSN : 00319171. DOI: 10.1063/1.863450

1981 doi
[17]

Diffusion in oscillatory pipe flow

E. J. Watson. “Diffusion in oscillatory pipe flow”. en. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 133 (Aug. 1983), pp. 233–

1983
[18]

Enhanced dispersion in oscillatory flows

U. H. Kurzweg, G. Howell, and M. J. Jaeger. “Enhanced dispersion in oscillatory flows”. en. In: Physics of Fluids 27.5 (1984), p. 1046. ISSN : 00319171. DOI: 10.1063/1.864752

1984 doi
[19]

Physics of oscillatory flow and its effect on the mass transfer and separation of species

Aaron M. Thomas and R. Narayanan. “Physics of oscillatory flow and its effect on the mass transfer and separation of species”. In: Physics of Fluids 13.4 (Apr. 2001). Publisher: American Institute of Physics, pp. 859–

2001
[20]

Dispersion in a curved tube during oscillatory flow

M. K. Sharp et al. “Dispersion in a curved tube during oscillatory flow”. en. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 223 (Feb. 1991). Publisher: Cambridge University Press, pp. 537–563. ISSN : 1469-7645, 0022-1120. DOI: 10.1017/S0022112091001544

1991 doi
[21]

On solute transport in oscillatory flow through an annular pipe with a reactive wall and its application to a catheterized artery

B. S. Mazumder and Kajal Kumar Mondal. “On solute transport in oscillatory flow through an annular pipe with a reactive wall and its application to a catheterized artery”. en. In:The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics 58.3 (Aug. 2005), pp. 349–365. ISSN : 1...

2005 doi
[22]

Dispersion of a solute in pulsatile non-Newtonian fluid flow through a tube

P. Nagarani and B. T. Sebastian. “Dispersion of a solute in pulsatile non-Newtonian fluid flow through a tube”. en. In: Acta Mechanica 224.3 (Mar. 2013), pp. 571–585. ISSN : 1619-6937. DOI: 10.1007/s00707-012-0753-6

2013 doi
[23]

Diffusive heat and mass transfer in oscillatory pipe flow

G. J. Brereton and S. M. Jalil. “Diffusive heat and mass transfer in oscillatory pipe flow”. In:Physics of Fluids29.7 (July 2017). Publisher: American Institute of Physics, p. 073601. ISSN : 1070-6631. DOI: 10.1063/1.4990976

2017 doi
[24]

Resonant alignment of microswimmer trajectories in oscillatory shear flows

Alexander Hope et al. “Resonant alignment of microswimmer trajectories in oscillatory shear flows”. In:Physical Review Fluids 1.5 (2016), p. 051201

2016
[25]

Microswimmer trapping in surface waves with shear

Francesco Michele Ventrella et al. “Microswimmer trapping in surface waves with shear”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society A 479.2278 (2023), p. 20230280

2023
[26]

Foundation and challenges in modelling dilute active suspensions

L. Fung, H. Caldag, and M. A. Bees. “Foundation and challenges in modelling dilute active suspensions”. In: Philosophical Transactions A (2025), pp. 1–18. DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2024.0251

2025
[27]

Biased swimming cells do not disperse in pipes as tracers: a population model based on microscale behaviour

Rachel N Bearon, MA Bees, and OA Croze. “Biased swimming cells do not disperse in pipes as tracers: a population model based on microscale behaviour”. In: Physics of fluids 24.12 (2012)

2012
[28]

Gyrotactic swimmer dispersion in pipe flow: testing the theory

Ottavio A Croze, Rachel N Bearon, and Martin A Bees. “Gyrotactic swimmer dispersion in pipe flow: testing the theory”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 816 (2017), pp. 481–506

2017
[29]

Taylor dispersion of gyrotactic swimming micro-organisms in a linear flow

NA Hill and MA Bees. “Taylor dispersion of gyrotactic swimming micro-organisms in a linear flow”. In:Physics of Fluids 14.8 (2002), pp. 2598–2605. 15 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 18, 2025

2002
[30]

Sheared bioconvection in a horizontal tube

OA Croze, EE Ashraf, and MA Bees. “Sheared bioconvection in a horizontal tube”. In: Physical biology 7.4 (2010), p. 046001

2010
[31]

A tale of three taxes: photo-gyro-gravitactic bioconvection

C Rosie Williams and Martin Alan Bees. “A tale of three taxes: photo-gyro-gravitactic bioconvection”. In: Journal of Experimental Biology 214.14 (2011), pp. 2398–2408

2011
[32]

Dispersion of a gyrotactic micro-organism suspension in a vertical pipe: the buoyancy–flow coupling effect

Bohan Wang, Weiquan Jiang, and Guoqian Chen. “Dispersion of a gyrotactic micro-organism suspension in a vertical pipe: the buoyancy–flow coupling effect”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 962 (2023), A39

2023
[33]

Emergent asymmetry in confined bioconvection

Martin A Bees and Prasad Perlekar. “Emergent asymmetry in confined bioconvection”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1003 (2025), A21

2025
[34]

Taylor dispersion in oscillatory flow in rectangular channels

Jinkee Lee, Anubhav Tripathi, and Anuj Chauhan. “Taylor dispersion in oscillatory flow in rectangular channels”. en. In: Chemical Engineering Science 117 (2014). DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2014.06.022

2014 doi
[36]

oomph-lib–An O bject-O riented M ulti-Phy sics Finite-Element Lib rary

Matthias Heil and Andrew L Hazel. “oomph-lib–An O bject-O riented M ulti-Phy sics Finite-Element Lib rary”. In: Fluid-structure interaction: Modelling, simulation, optimisation. Springer. 2006, pp. 19–49

2006
[37]

Motility-Induced Phase Separation Mediated by Bacterial Quorum Sensing

Wesley JM Ridgway et al. “Motility-Induced Phase Separation Mediated by Bacterial Quorum Sensing”. In: Physical Review Letters 131.22 (2023), p. 228302. 16

2023
[244]

DOI: 10.1017/S0022112083001883

ISSN : 0022-1120, 1469-7645. DOI: 10.1017/S0022112083001883

doi
[866]

DOI: 10.1063/1.1351549

ISSN : 1070-6631. DOI: 10.1063/1.1351549

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [35]

The interplay between bulk flow and boundary conditions on the distribution of microswimmers in channel flow

Smitha Maretvadakethope et al. “The interplay between bulk flow and boundary conditions on the distribution of microswimmers in channel flow”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 976 (2023), A13

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flowing slowly through a tube

Geoffrey Ingram Taylor. “Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flowing slowly through a tube”. In:Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 219.1137 (1953), pp. 186–203

work page 1953

[3] [2]

On the dispersion of a solute in a fluid flowing through a tube

Rutherford Aris. “On the dispersion of a solute in a fluid flowing through a tube”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 235.1200 (1956), pp. 67–77

work page 1956

[4] [3]

Individual and collective fluid dynamics of swimming cells

John O Kessler. “Individual and collective fluid dynamics of swimming cells”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 173 (1986), pp. 191–205

work page 1986

[5] [4]

Advances in bioconvection

M. A. Bees. “Advances in bioconvection”. In: Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 52.1 (2020), pp. 449–476

work page 2020

[6] [5]

Dispersion of biased swimming micro-organisms in a fluid flowing through a tube

Martin A Bees and Ottavio A Croze. “Dispersion of biased swimming micro-organisms in a fluid flowing through a tube”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 466.2119 (2010), pp. 2057–2077. 14 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 18, 2025

work page 2010

[7] [6]

Development of suitable photobioreactor for algae production–A review

RN Singh and Shaishav Sharma. “Development of suitable photobioreactor for algae production–A review”. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16.4 (2012), pp. 2347–2353

work page 2012

[8] [7]

Biofouling in photobioreactors for marine microalgae

Ouassim Zeriouh et al. “Biofouling in photobioreactors for marine microalgae”. In: Critical reviews in biotech- nology 37.8 (2017), pp. 1006–1023

work page 2017