Effect of transient shell formation on Shock-induced atomization of an evaporating nanofluid droplet

Akarsh Choudhary; Bal Krishan; Gautham Vadlamudi; Saptarshi Basu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 references

Effect of transient shell formation on Shock-induced atomization of an evaporating nanofluid droplet

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the evaporation stage of a nanofluid droplet—whether its surface is liquid, gel, or a solid shell—controls which breakup mode appears under blast-induced atomization, from shear stripping to bag-on-sheet puncture to br

desk verdict First systematic look at how evaporation-driven shell formation changes shock-induced breakup of nanofluid droplets, with a useful regime map—but the shell mechanism is inferred, not measured, so the central claim needs direct characterization. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14733 v1 pith:T3JHIS3Y submitted 2025-08-20 physics.flu-dyn

Gautham Vadlamudi , Bal Krishan , Akarsh Choudhary , Saptarshi Basu This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.flu-dyn MSC 76T2076L0576T10 PACS 47.55.D47.40.-x

keywords nanofluiddropletshock-inducedatomizationaerobreakupsol-geltransitionshellformationblastwavecompressiblevortexringregimemap

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 sets out to show that the breakup of an evaporating nanofluid droplet under a blast wave is governed by the evaporation stage at the moment the shock arrives. At early times the droplet is still liquid and atomizes in familiar shear and Rayleigh–Taylor modes; after surface gelation, a soft shell resists deformation and redirects breakup into an equatorial protrusion, bag-on-sheet puncture, jetting, and delamination; after solidification, the shell fails by brittle cracking and catastrophic fragmentation. The authors support this with high-speed shadowgraphy of acoustically levitated TM-10 silica droplets hit by a wire-explosion blast wave followed by a compressible vortex ring, and they organize all cases into a regime map with axes of evaporation stage, normalized interaction time, and shock strength. If the claim is right, the evaporation history of particle-laden drops matters as much as the aerodynamic load in setting atomization outcomes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the evaporation-driven sol–gel shell: as solvent evaporates, silica nanoparticles accumulate at the interface, gelling at a local volume fraction around 0.35 and solidifying near random close packing (0.51–0.64), so the droplet becomes a liquid core wrapped in a shell whose stiffness grows with drying time. The argument is carried by three clocks: the gelation time tg, the blast-decay time, and the compressible-vortex-ring arrival time tCVR. The load-bearing criterion is the hoop-stress puncture condition, with puncture when the internal pressure excess reaches about 4δshG/D, where δsh is shell thickness and G is shell elastic modulus; a modified Krieger–Dougherty visco

What would settle it

Measure the droplet's radial structure at td/tg ≈ 1.3 and 1.8 with cryo-SEM or fluorescent tagging and rheometry of the levitated drop; if there is no distinct gel or solid shell of thickness δsh with modulus G near 10^3–10^5 Pa, or if a homogeneous droplet matched to the predicted bulk viscosity reproduces the same equatorial-puncture and bag-on-sheet sequence, then the shell mechanism is not what controls the breakup.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' account, the same blast flow produces three qualitatively different atomization sequences depending on whether the droplet is sampled before gelation (td/tg < 1), in the gel-shell window (1 < td/tg ≤ 1.5), or after shell solidification (td/tg ~ 1.8). In the liquid stage, the droplet flattens, forms a windward sheet, and breaks by Kelvin–Helmholtz shear stripping at high Weber number or Rayleigh–Taylor piercing and multibag breakup at low Weber number. In the gel-shell stage, the shell resists deformation; internal pressure drives an equatorial protrusion that is modulated into bags-on-sheet, then punctures, releasing the inner liquid as a jet while the shell delaminates under

Load-bearing premise

That a distinct mechanical shell actually exists at the droplet surface with the stiffness and thickness assumed: gelation time is read from a kink in the evaporation curve, the shell modulus G is an order-of-magnitude literature estimate, and shell thickness δsh is unknown—if the changed breakup is instead caused by a uniformly rising bulk viscosity, the central classification would not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Timing the shock to arrive before, during, or after shell formation selects the atomization mode at the same shock strength.
A gel shell does not simply slow breakup; it changes the failure path from sheet stripping to equatorial protrusion, bag-on-sheet puncture, jetting, and delamination.
A solid shell switches failure from hydrodynamic deformation to brittle fracture: crack initiation, flake delamination, and catastrophic shell disintegration followed by stripping of the released liquid.
The normalized interaction time tnorm controls when breakup starts, because atomization begins only after the compressible vortex ring arrives, not during the short blast-decay phase.
The regime map provides a predictive organization of breakup outcomes for transient, multicomponent droplets under shock loading: given evaporation stage and Weber number, the dominant mechanism can be read off.

Reading between the lines

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

If shell stiffness is what controls mode, then varying particle size or initial concentration to shift the gelation time should switch a fixed blast setup from bag-on-sheet to brittle fragmentation—a direct, testable consequence the paper does not run.
The puncture scaling ΔPin ~ 4δshG/D implies that puncture location and timing should be predictable from shell thickness and modulus; measuring δsh by microscopy and G by rheometry at the same evaporation stage would turn a phenomenological sequence into a quantitative criterion.
The regime map suggests a possible control strategy for blast dispersal or spray coating: holding droplets for a prescribed evaporation time before exposure to the same aerodynamic load could let an operator choose between fine atomization and large shell-flake fragments.
Because the paper rejects the bulk-viscosity alternative using a tuned collision-efficiency factor, a cleaner test would compare the nanofluid droplet with a homogeneous polymer solution matched to the same measured bulk viscosity: if the same equatorial-puncture sequence appears, a distinct shell is not needed to explain it.

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

You should know two things about this paper. First, it is the first systematic look at how evaporation-driven shell formation changes the way a nanofluid droplet breaks up under a blast wave. Second, the key mechanism—shell puncture, delamination, brittle fracture—is inferred from high-speed images and a model with a free parameter chosen to match those same images, not from direct shell characterization. That distinction matters for how much weight you put on the claims.

What is genuinely new: the paper maps breakup modes across evaporation stages. Before gelation you get the usual sheet stripping and bag-on-sheet; in the gel-shell stage you get equatorial protrusions that puncture the surface, release inner liquid, and later delaminate; in the solid-shell stage you get brittle fracture, flake-like delamination, and catastrophic shell failure. The regime map in Figure 15, organized by normalized shock delay td/tg, interaction time, and Weber number, is a useful organizing framework that other groups will likely borrow. The blast wave and compressible vortex ring flow characterization is also thorough: they measured Mach numbers, tracked the CVR, and provide time-resolved velocity histories. The imaging quality is good, and the qualitative distinction between gel and solid shell responses is visually supported.

The soft spots, in order of importance: the shell itself is never directly measured. The gelation time is read from a break in the D^2 evaporation curve, the shell elastic modulus is an order-of-magnitude estimate from HS-40 literature rescaled by particle size, and the shell thickness is declared unknown in Section 3.6.1. The main alternative—that the bulk viscosity rises continuously due to concentration and agglomeration, without any distinct elastic shell—is dismissed using Krieger–Dougherty with a collision efficiency alpha = 1e-4 chosen so that the predicted interior stays liquid-like. Higher alpha values that would predict interior gelation are rejected by appealing to the same visual interpretation (liquid core escaping after puncture) that is under test. That is a real circularity. Also, quantitative claims like deformation rates and bag/sheet growth come from single sequences without error bars or repeat counts.

That said, the observations themselves are not invalidated by the weak model. The different breakup morphologies at different evaporation stages are real and reproducible in the images. What is missing is the causal link that a distinct elastic shell is responsible, rather than a smooth gradient in viscosity or simply a stiffer, more viscous surface layer.

This paper is for anyone working on droplet aerobreakup, colloidal droplet drying, or multiphase blast interactions. It is a solid phenomenological foundation, not the final word. I would send it to serious peer review, but with required revisions: direct shell characterization (SEM and rheology of actual levitated droplets), repeat runs for key quantitative metrics, and a more careful treatment of the homogeneous-viscosity alternative. It deserves referee time; it just needs to earn the mechanism.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports an experimental study of the shock-induced breakup of an acoustically levitated, laser-heated TM-10 (colloidal silica) nanofluid droplet. A wire-explosion blast wave and the trailing compressible vortex ring provide the aerodynamic loading, while the droplet's evaporation stage is parametrized by a shock delay td. The authors identify three regimes—steady evaporation, gelatinous-shell, and solid-shell—based on the D^2-evaporation curve and surface appearance, and they describe distinct breakup morphologies in each regime (e.g., bag-on-sheet with equatorial protrusion and shell puncture in the gel regime; brittle fracture and delamination in the solid regime). A regime map in td/tg, tnorm, and Ms,r/WeCVR,avg is proposed. The central physical claim is that evaporation-driven sol–gel transition and shell solidification, rather than only the bulk viscosity increase, control the atomization mechanism.

Significance. The data set is valuable: it combines high-speed shadowgraphy/Schlieren, a validated blast-wave model, particle-seeded velocity measurements, and a systematic variation of shock delay and shock strength. The observed morphological differences between early and late evaporation stages (Figs. 6 and 11) are visually supported and appear broadly reproducible. If the proposed shell-controlled mechanisms are confirmed, the regime map would be an important extension of aerobreakup studies to transiently evolving colloidal droplets. However, the current evidence does not yet establish the load-bearing link: the shell's existence, thickness, and mechanical properties are inferred rather than measured, and the main alternative (homogeneous or radially stratified viscosity) is excluded through a calibrated collision efficiency. The paper would be significantly stronger with direct shell characterization or with a quantitative falsification of the homogeneous-viscosity hypothesis; as it stands, the central mechanistic claim is not independently supported.

major comments (3)

[§3.5, Eq. (3.21), Fig. 10(a)] The value α≈1×10^-4 is selected because it keeps the interior apparent volume fraction in the sol regime; larger values (α≥5×10^-4) are rejected on the same visual evidence that the paper uses to infer a distinct shell. This is circular: the homogeneous-viscosity alternative is not tested, it is removed by construction. An independent measurement of aggregation kinetics (e.g., DLS on identically evaporated samples) or a forward calculation showing that homogeneous-viscosity droplets cannot match the observed deformation/breakup timescales is required before the shell mechanism can be claimed.
[§3.6.1; §3.5, G and δsh] The puncture analysis relies on the criterion ΔP∼4δshG/D, but δsh is declared unknown in §3.6.1 and G is only an order-of-magnitude estimate rescaled from HS-40 data via a r_p^-3 scaling. The paper states that detailed variation of G and δsh lies beyond the scope. With δsh and G unmeasured, this criterion cannot be used to distinguish a distinct elastic shell from a highly viscous surface layer. Direct shell characterization (SEM of fragments, high-magnification imaging, or rheological measurements on evaporating droplets) is necessary to support the central claim.
[§3.1, Fig. 2(b), Table 1; §3.5, tsh] The gelation time tg is read from the single break in the D^2 curve and all regimes are defined relative to it (td/tg<1, 1–1.5, >1.5). No uncertainty, repeatability, or independent confirmation of this break is reported. The solidification time tsh is used repeatedly in §3.5 and §3.6 but is never measured or even defined quantitatively. The regime boundaries in Fig. 15 consequently contain an unquantified coordinate. The authors should at least provide error bars for tg and define tsh consistently.

minor comments (5)

[References] Sharma et al. 2023a and 2023b are duplicate entries (same JFM article), and 2021a/2021b are also identical. Please correct the bibliography so the same work is not cited under two different keys.
[Eq. (3.3) and §3.5] The symbol ϕ is used both for the non-dimensional velocity in Eq. (3.3) and for the particle volume fraction throughout §3.5. This is confusing; rename one of them.
[Figures 5, 6, 11] Add scale bars and state the pixel-to-length conversion on each panel; the spatial resolution is only given in §2.2.1.
[§2.2.2 and elsewhere] There are typos: 'Otsu's thresolding' should be 'Otsu's thresholding', and 'correponding' appears in the Figure 15 caption/legend.
[Abstract and Eq. (1.1)] The abstract uses γ for surface tension while Eq. (1.1) defines We with σ; unify the symbol.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Interior-liquid viscosity 'prediction' is set by the α=1e−4 fit; shell-regime mechanism otherwise rests on an unmeasured shell.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5, Eqs. (3.19)–(3.21), Fig. 10(a)-(b)]
"to obtain the estimate for the viscosity variation, the temporal evolution of ϕa in the interior of the evaporating TM-10 droplet was evaluated for various α≪1 and compared with the nominal volume fraction ϕ(tL), as shown in Figure 10a. The ... α∼1×10−4 ... ϕa,max reaching only about 0.3 ... corresponding to the Sol regime. In contrast, higher α ⩾5×10−4 values lead to unrealistically high ϕa ... suggesting gelation. However, this does not agree with experimental observations, which clearly showed liquid-like behaviour of the internal liquid..."

kagg,pr,mod = α(8kBT/3μ) is introduced because the unmodified Smoluchowski rate 'significantly overestimates' ra (Sec. 3.5). The value α=1e−4 is not measured; it is selected because this choice keeps ϕa,max≈0.3, 'corresponding to the Sol regime,' while α≥5e−4 is rejected because it 'does not agree with experimental observations, which clearly showed liquid-like behaviour of the internal liquid.' Equation (3.19) with this α then reports a viscosity rise whose 'order of magnitude remains unchanged, consistent with the experimentally observed liquid-like behaviour.' Thus the interior-viscosity 'prediction' is the same observation used to pick α; it cannot independently rule out a homogeneous viscosity increase or establish that a distinct elastic shell exists.

full rationale

The aerodynamic characterization is largely self-contained: blast-wave velocity is measured by Schlieren and compared with the Bach & Lee analytical solution; CVR velocity is obtained by particle tracking; and the breakup phenomenology is organized into a regime map from direct imaging. Those parts are not circular. The circularity is concentrated in Section 3.5, where the model is forced to agree with the observation it is then used to support. The Smoluchowski perikinetic rate (Eq. 3.15) overestimates aggregate growth, so the authors introduce the collision efficiency α in Eq. 3.21. Rather than measuring or independently bounding α, the value α=1e−4 is chosen because it keeps the interior apparent volume fraction in the sol regime, matching the qualitative observation that the inner liquid is liquid-like; α≥5e−4 is rejected for predicting interior gelation, which would contradict that same observation. The modified Krieger–Dougherty model (Eq. 3.19) then 'shows' the interior viscosity changes little, which is simply the input used to select α. This fitted step is load-bearing because it is the only quantitative basis for dismissing the homogeneous-viscosity alternative and for maintaining the sharply distinct shell/interior picture that underpins the puncture/delamination/brittle-fracture interpretation. The paper is honest that shell thickness and modulus are not measured (Section 3.6.1), so this is a modeling circularity rather than a deliberate concealment, but it is central to the causal claim. Overall score 6: one key 'prediction' reduces by construction, while the flow measurements and image-based regime classification retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's contributions are experimental; the quantitative framing pulls most of its quantitative structure from prior literature (Bach-Lee blast solution, Krieger-Dougherty viscosity, Smoluchowski aggregation, Di Giuseppe gelation thresholds, Shih/Zaccone elastic scaling). The main in-paper choices are the collision efficiency alpha and the hand-set gelation/solidification range, plus the empirical identification of tg from the D^2 break. No new physical entity is proposed; the shell is a known phenomenon whose specific state here is inferred.

free parameters (4)

collision efficiency factor alpha = ~1e-4 (5e-4 rejected)
Chosen so the modified Smoluchowski/Krieger-Dougherty model keeps the interior apparent volume fraction in the sol regime (phi_a,max ~ 0.3), matching the observed liquid-like interior; higher alpha values would predict gelation. Section 3.5, Fig 10a.
gelation timescale tg = ~4 s
Read off the D^2 evaporation curve where regression flattens (Fig 2a,b); used to normalize all shock delays td/tg and to draw regime boundaries. Identified empirically in Section 3.1.
gelation/solidification volume fractions for TM-10 = range 0.35-0.64
Inherited from HS-40 literature (phi_g ~ 0.35, phi_c ~ 0.51) and hand-widened with an added error bar for the larger 22 nm TM-10 particles; upper limit set by random close packing 0.64. No direct measurement. Fig 10a.
fractal dimension Df = not stated in text
Equation 3.18 and 3.20 require Df to compute aggregate radius and apparent volume fraction, but no value is given in the manuscript.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Bach-Lee self-similar blast wave solution is valid for the Mach range 1.1 < Ms,r < 1.6
Used to build the decaying velocity v_s(t) in Section 3.2; validated against the experimentally tracked shock trajectory in Fig 4c, but the analytic density/velocity profiles are assumed.
standard math Krieger-Dougherty viscosity relation describes the nanofluid bulk viscosity
Equations 3.10 and 3.19, standard suspension rheology; depends on intrinsic viscosity 2.5 and maximum packing fraction 0.64 assumed for hard spheres.
standard math Smoluchowski perikinetic aggregation kinetics with k = 8kBT/3mu
Equations 3.12-3.16; the paper itself notes the unmodified model overestimates aggregate size and introduces alpha to relax it.
domain assumption Shell elastic modulus follows G ~ phi^3.3 and G ~ rp^-3
Section 3.5 uses scalings from Cao (2011), Shih et al. (1990), and Zaccone & Scossa-Romano (2011) to estimate the gel-shell modulus as O(10^3-10^4) Pa; scalar extrapolations from different particle sizes.
domain assumption A distinct porous gel/solid shell forms at the droplet surface and slows evaporation
Inferred in Section 3.1 from the D^2 regression flattening and surface texturing, supported by literature (Tsapis, Style & Peppin, Pandey & Basu), but not directly measured in this study.
domain assumption The droplet interior is well-mixed and uniform during evaporation
Section 3.5 justifies it with Pe_int ~ O(10^3-10^4) from internal acoustic streaming, plus Pe_evap for surface accumulation; a modeling assumption, not a measurement.
standard math Otsu-thresholded 2D projection gives the instantaneous droplet size
Section 2.2.2; standard image processing assumption that the droplet is axisymmetric and the projected area maps to diameter D.

invented entities (1)

Gelatinous/solid surface shell with inferred mechanics
purpose: The central cause invoked to explain deformation resistance, equatorial protrusion, shell puncture, delamination, and brittle fracture in the gel-shell and solid-shell regimes.
The shell's presence, thickness, and modulus are inferred from the evaporation curve and images; G is an order-of-magnitude estimate and dsh is declared unknown in Sections 3.5 and 3.6.1. The paper itself defers direct characterization to SEM and rheology. The shell is a known phenomenon in colloidal literature, not a newly proposed entity, but its specific mechanical state here is postulated rather than measured.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of transient shell formation on Shock-induced atomization of an evaporating nanofluid droplet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T3JHIS3Y

@misc{pith2026250814733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of transient shell formation on Shock-induced atomization of an evaporating nanofluid droplet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T3JHIS3Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14733}
}

read the original abstract

This study investigates the shock-induced atomisation dynamics of an acoustically levitated TM-10 nanofluid droplet subjected to a coaxially propagating blast wave and subsequent compressible vortex ring, generated using a compact wire-explosion shock source. The blast wave imposes a sharp velocity discontinuity, followed by a decaying flow field and a vortex-dominated interaction that drives droplet disintegration. Laser-induced heating promotes evaporation, increasing nanoparticle concentration, viscosity, and agglomeration within the droplet. Progressive evaporation leads to interfacial nanoparticle accumulation, initiating a sol-gel transition when the local volume fraction exceeds the gelation threshold, and ultimately forming a solid outer shell as the maximum packing limit is approached. Shock interactions are systematically examined across three evaporation stages: (i) steady liquid phase, (ii) gel-shell phase, and (iii) solid-shell phase. Each regime exhibits distinct atomisation responses due to the evolving interfacial morphology. In the gel-shell regime, deformation is resisted by the viscous shell, producing a bag-on-sheet mode, followed by puncture, jetting, and eventual shell delamination. In the solid-shell regime, interactions intensify, resulting in brittle fragmentation and catastrophic fracture. The findings reveal how evaporation-driven interfacial transitions fundamentally alter breakup mechanisms under transient shock loading. By linking nanoparticle transport, shell formation, and flow droplet interaction across multiple timescales, this work establishes new physical insights into the atomisation of complex, multicomponent, multiphase, and transiently evolving droplets under extreme aerodynamic conditions

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

AIAA journal 41 (12), 2371–2378

Aalburg, C, Van Leer, B & Faeth, GM 2003 Deformation and drag properties of round drops subjected to shock-wave disturbances. AIAA journal 41 (12), 2371–2378. Aravind, Akhil, Vadlamudi, Gautham & Basu, Saptarshi2025a Response of non-premixed jet flames to blast waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1013, A3. Aravind, Akhil, Vadlamudi, Gautham & Basu, Saptarsh...

work page 2003
[58]

Skin formation in evaporating colloidal droplets

Russel, William Bailey, Russel, WB, Saville, Dudley A & Schowalter, William Raymond 1991 Colloidal dispersions . Cambridge university press. Russel, William B, Wagner, Norman J & Mewis, Jan 2013 Divergence in the low shear viscosity for brownian hard-sphere dispersions: At random close packing or the glass transition? Journal of Rheology 57 (6), 1555–1567...

work page Pith review arXiv 1991
[73]

Physics of Fluids 25 (5)

Zhao, Hui, Liu, Hai-Feng, Xu, Jian-Liang, Li, Wei-Feng & Lin, Kuang-Fei 2013 Temporal properties of secondary drop breakup in the bag-stamen breakup regime. Physics of Fluids 25 (5)

work page 2013
[367]

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (19- 20), 3677–3682

Chen, Ruey-Hung, Phuoc, Tran X & Martello, Donald 2010 Effects of nanoparticles on nanofluid droplet evaporation. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (19- 20), 3677–3682. Cheng, Zhengdong, Zhu, Jixiang, Chaikin, Paul M, Phan, See-Eng & Russel, William B 2002 Nature of the divergence in low shear viscosity of colloidal hard-sphere dispersion...

work page 2010
[4772]

Langmuir 23 (3), 1081–1090

Studart, Andre R, Amstad, Esther & Gauckler, Ludwig J 2007 Colloidal stabilization of nanoparticles in concentrated suspensions. Langmuir 23 (3), 1081–1090. Style, Robert W & Peppin, Stephen SL 2011 Crust formation in drying colloidal suspensions. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 467 (2125), 174–193. Theo...

work page 2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

AIAA journal 41 (12), 2371–2378

Aalburg, C, Van Leer, B & Faeth, GM 2003 Deformation and drag properties of round drops subjected to shock-wave disturbances. AIAA journal 41 (12), 2371–2378. Aravind, Akhil, Vadlamudi, Gautham & Basu, Saptarshi2025a Response of non-premixed jet flames to blast waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1013, A3. Aravind, Akhil, Vadlamudi, Gautham & Basu, Saptarsh...

work page 2003

[2] [58]

Skin formation in evaporating colloidal droplets

Russel, William Bailey, Russel, WB, Saville, Dudley A & Schowalter, William Raymond 1991 Colloidal dispersions . Cambridge university press. Russel, William B, Wagner, Norman J & Mewis, Jan 2013 Divergence in the low shear viscosity for brownian hard-sphere dispersions: At random close packing or the glass transition? Journal of Rheology 57 (6), 1555–1567...

work page Pith review arXiv 1991

[3] [73]

Physics of Fluids 25 (5)

Zhao, Hui, Liu, Hai-Feng, Xu, Jian-Liang, Li, Wei-Feng & Lin, Kuang-Fei 2013 Temporal properties of secondary drop breakup in the bag-stamen breakup regime. Physics of Fluids 25 (5)

work page 2013

[4] [367]

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (19- 20), 3677–3682

Chen, Ruey-Hung, Phuoc, Tran X & Martello, Donald 2010 Effects of nanoparticles on nanofluid droplet evaporation. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (19- 20), 3677–3682. Cheng, Zhengdong, Zhu, Jixiang, Chaikin, Paul M, Phan, See-Eng & Russel, William B 2002 Nature of the divergence in low shear viscosity of colloidal hard-sphere dispersion...

work page 2010

[5] [4772]

Langmuir 23 (3), 1081–1090

Studart, Andre R, Amstad, Esther & Gauckler, Ludwig J 2007 Colloidal stabilization of nanoparticles in concentrated suspensions. Langmuir 23 (3), 1081–1090. Style, Robert W & Peppin, Stephen SL 2011 Crust formation in drying colloidal suspensions. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 467 (2125), 174–193. Theo...

work page 2007