Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 68 references

Jetting with gels: Soft microgel networks stabilize and extend nozzle-free water jets

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 softness of microgel particles, not their chemistry, sets how long a nozzle-free jet survives: soft microgels extend acoustic water jets by up to 44%.

desk verdict The experimental result is real and worth knowing—soft microgels extend SAW jets by up to 44%—but the paper oversells the quantitative agreement by plugging an unpinned simulated surface tension into a one-line scaling law. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21147 v1 pith:SHLOLM2M submitted 2025-08-28 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.chem-ph

Atieh Razavi , Mehrzad Roudini , Andreas Winkler , Benno Liebchen , Regine von Klitzing , Suvendu Mandal , Amin Rahimzadeh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.chem-ph
keywords microgelsPNIPAMsurfaceacousticwavesnozzle-freejettingRayleigh–Plateauinstabilityinterfacialelasticitytensiondissipativeparticledynamics
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

This paper sets out to show that the nanoscale softness of microgel particles—not their chemistry—controls how long a nozzle-free liquid jet survives before capillary forces break it into droplets. In jetting driven by surface acoustic waves, the interface is stretched so fast that conventional surfactants desorb and stop protecting the jet. Loosely cross-linked PNIPAM microgels, by contrast, flatten into an elastic interfacial network whose polymer chains remain entangled under strain, keeping the effective surface tension low while the jet elongates. The paper reports jet lengths up to 44% longer than pure water and a simple energy-balance scaling that predicts the size of the effect from the simulated drop in surface tension.

What carries the argument

The elastic interfacial network of soft microgels: low-cross-linker PNIPAM particles that spread into "fried-egg" monolayers whose dangling corona chains interpenetrate and stay entangled under rapid lateral stretching, keeping effective surface tension low. The quantitative workhorse is the scaling relation L/R ~ ρu₀²R²/(6γh), which equates the kinetic energy the surface acoustic wave imparts to the droplet with the surface energy needed to create the jet; combined with the simulated value γ ≈ 50 mN/m for soft microgels it predicts the observed ~40% jet-length enhancement.

What would settle it

Measure jet length as a function of input power (jet speed u₀) and droplet radius R for the same 1 wt% MG1 dispersion. The scaling L/R ~ ρu₀²R²/(6γh) predicts L/R ∝ u₀²R² with γ ≈ 50 mN/m fixed; a deviation from that power law, or a surface tension recovered from the fit that disagrees with the simulated 50 mN/m, would falsify the energy-balance mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Soft microgels (PNIPAM with low cross-linker density) form a cohesive, stretchable interfacial layer at the air–water interface that suppresses surface-tension recovery during jet elongation and delays Rayleigh–Plateau breakup, extending SAW-driven jet length by up to 44% over water. Stiffer microgels disentangle under the same strain, exposing bare interface and breaking the jet early. Dissipative-particle-dynamics simulations show polymer bridges between soft microgels stay entangled during extension, holding surface tension below ~50 mN/m, while stiff microgels recover toward ~65 mN/m. Balancing the SAW-imparted kinetic energy of the droplet against the surface energy of the forming jet g

Load-bearing premise

The predicted 40% enhancement rests on assuming that the surface tension measured in the simulation of two microgels stretched at a flat air–water interface is the same as the dynamic surface tension on the real jet surface; the paper never measures surface tension during jetting, and if the true value differs—or if interfacial elasticity rather than scalar surface tension governs the jet—the quantitative agreement would be coincidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Jets from soft-microgel dispersions are not limited by the Rayleigh–Plateau instability: the measured O(1 cm) lengths are an order of magnitude larger than the instability breakup length, so jet length is set by the kinetic-energy-to-surface-energy balance.
  • The stabilization works at very low loading (0.01 wt%) and grows with concentration and softness, implying the effect is governed by interfacial coverage rather than bulk rheology.
  • Molecular surfactants (C14TAB) give only ~4% improvement at sub-CMC and worsen near CMC under the same jetting conditions, so microgels offer a qualitatively different stabilization route that tolerates extreme strain rates.
  • Tuning cross-linker density alone (MG1 vs MG5 vs MG10) switches jet behavior from extended to rapid breakup, making microgel softness a single control parameter for jet stability.
  • The same interfacial-elasticity idea may extend to natural systems such as bubble bursting at oil-covered water surfaces, and to bioprinting and needle-free drug delivery where biocompatible stabilizers are required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quantitative agreement rests on the simulated surface tension (~50 mN/m) being the actual dynamic value on the jet surface; the paper does not measure surface tension during jetting, so an independent measurement of dynamic tension at ~1 m/s strain rates—or a test of the L/R ∝ 1/γ prediction with a surfactant whose dynamic tension is known—would confirm or refute the mechanism.
  • The scaling relation predicts jet length should grow as u₀² (or R²) and shrink as 1/γ; varying SAW power and droplet size in the same microgel system would provide a direct, quantitative test of whether energy balance alone sets the jet length.
  • If the entangled-corona mechanism is general, other deformable soft colloids—protein aggregates, lipid vesicles, or ultra-soft particles—should prolong jets in proportion to their interfacial elasticity, a pattern the authors hint at but do not test.
  • The abrupt difference between MG1 (44% enhancement) and MG5/MG10 (near-water behavior) suggests a percolation-like transition in the interfacial network's connectivity; measuring jet length across a continuous cross-linker sweep would map this transition.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental, simulation, and scaling study of SAW-driven nozzle-free jetting of PNIPAM microgel dispersions. Soft, low-cross-linker microgels (MG1) at 1 wt% are claimed to extend jet lengths by up to 44% relative to water, whereas stiffer microgels do not. DPD simulations of two adsorbed microgels under lateral stretching show that soft microgels remain interconnected and keep the dynamic surface tension below 50 mN/m, while stiff microgels disentangle and approach the bare water value. A scaling argument balancing SAW kinetic energy against jet surface energy, Eq. (1), is then used to predict a ~40% jet-length enhancement from a reduction of effective surface tension from ~70 to ~50 mN/m, which the authors call quantitative agreement.

Significance. If the experimental core is correct, the paper introduces a genuinely new interfacial stabilization mechanism for high-strain jetting: soft microgels form cohesive interfacial networks that suppress capillary breakup, which is relevant for needle-free drug delivery, printing, and biofabrication. The combination of controlled experiments, explicit-solvent DPD simulations, and a simple scaling relation is attractive, and the supplementary movies and data repository are useful. The main caveat is that the quantitative bridge between simulation and experiment is not firmly established: the simulated dynamic surface tension used as input to Eq. (1) is not pinned down, and no direct dynamic surface-tension measurement during jetting is provided. Thus the paper's central mechanistic claim is defensible, but the 'quantitative prediction' is currently overstated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.D, Eq. (1), Fig. 6] The claimed quantitative prediction (~40% enhancement) uses γ_soft ≈ 50 mN/m, but Fig. 6 only reports that MG2 'remains below 50 mN/m'; no plateau value, uncertainty, or time at which the plateau is reached is given. Since Eq. (1) gives enhancement = γ_water/γ_soft − 1, a true γ_soft of 55 or 45 mN/m yields 27% or 56%, respectively, so the 'excellent agreement' with 44% is not pinned. Either report a measured/plateau value with uncertainty, test the scaling over a systematic range of γ (e.g., varying concentration, cross-linker density, or jet velocity), or soften the quantitative claim.
  2. [§II.C, Fig. 5] The simulation is not a quantitative proxy for the headline experiment: it uses MG2 (2% cross-linker) whereas the main jet-extension data are for MG1 (1% cross-linker), it places only two microgels at a planar interface rather than a 1 wt% network, and the DPD parameters are not calibrated to the dynamic interfacial tension during jetting. The text itself acknowledges that direct dynamic surface-tension measurements during jetting are not available, so the DPD-derived 50 mN/m input to Eq. (1) remains an unvalidated model output. A direct dynamic surface-tension measurement at the jetting timescale, or an explicit multi-condition scaling test, is needed before 'quantitatively predicts' can be accepted.
  3. [§II.B, Fig. 2] The central experimental effect—44% jet-length enhancement for MG1 at 1 wt%—is presented without error bars, replicate counts, or significance tests for the L/R data. One mean±SD (15.59±0.14 mm) is given in the text, but the number of independent jetting runs is not stated. Without this information the reader cannot assess whether the concentration and cross-linker trends are robust, and the quantitative comparison with Eq. (1) is underdetermined. Please provide replicate statistics for all data points in Fig. 2 and the corresponding text.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption and §II.D] Notation inconsistency: Fig. 1 defines R as the initial droplet radius, while §II.D calls R the initial droplet diameter. Eq. (1) uses R as a length scale; please make the definition consistent.
  2. [Fig. 6] The figure would benefit from clear axis labels, units, and explicit plateau values with uncertainties. The text refers to an initial surface tension of ~40 mN/m for all microgel systems and later to a reduction from ~70 to ~50 mN/m; these numbers should be reconciled in the main text.
  3. [Data and code availability] The statements say that data and code are available 'upon request'. Given that a public Tudatalib repository is already used for movies, depositing the raw jet-length data, replicate measurements, and simulation input files there would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scaling prediction uses a DPD-computed surface tension that is not fitted to the measured jet-length enhancement.

full rationale

The paper's claimed quantitative prediction is Eq. 1, L/R ~ ρu0^2 R^2/(6γh), obtained by balancing SAW-driven kinetic energy against the surface energy of the jet. The only input that changes between water and microgel jets is γ, and the paper takes γ_soft ≈ 50 mN/m from DPD simulations, not from the jet-length data. The DPD model is calibrated to reproduce pure water's surface tension (~70 mN/m) and its initial microgel-laden interfacial tension (~40 mN/m), but it is not fitted to the 44% observed jet-length increase. Thus the predicted ~40% enhancement is a genuine out-of-sample consistency check rather than a restatement of the experimental result. The simulation's γ_soft is admittedly indirect—it is reported only as 'below 50 mN/m' and is computed for MG2 rather than the experimental MG1, and the paper itself states that direct measurement of dynamic surface tension during jetting 'remains experimentally challenging.' These are uncertainties about the quantitative robustness of the comparison, not circularity. Self-citations in the paper (e.g., refs. [44], [46], [55]) support peripheral facts such as microgel softness and prior surface-tension kinetics; they are not load-bearing for the central energy-balance scaling. No equation or fitted parameter is defined in terms of the jet length it is used to predict, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The free parameters and assumptions listed here are what the central quantitative prediction rests on. The microgels themselves are real, well-characterized materials; no new physical entities are postulated. The main burden is on the simulated effective surface tension and the energy-balance scaling.

free parameters (2)
  • DPD interaction parameters (a_ww=aaa=8.8, a_mw=4.5, a_ma=5.0, Rc=1.9σ, ρDPD=4.5) = Calibrated to yield pure water surface tension ~70 mN/m
    Chosen to reproduce the air-water interface; these values set the baseline surface tension and directly influence the simulated microgel-laden interface tension used in the 40% prediction.
  • Effective surface tension of soft microgel interface during stretching (γ_soft) = ~50 mN/m, described as 'below 50' in Fig. 6
    Used in Eq. 1 to predict ~40% jet elongation; not directly measured during jetting, and the exact value is loosely constrained, so the prediction is not a strict parameter-free test.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All SAW-injected kinetic energy of the droplet is converted into surface energy of the jet (E_kin ~ E_surf).
    This energy balance in Section II.D ignores the jet's residual kinetic energy and viscous dissipation; it is an order-of-magnitude scaling, not a derived conservation law.
  • domain assumption Jet dynamics are governed solely by inertia and surface tension; viscous and gravitational effects are negligible (Ca~0.01, Bo~0.001).
    Stated in Section II.D using dimensional analysis; reasonable for the regime but contributes to the approximate character of the scaling.
  • domain assumption The microgel-laden interface can be represented by an effective scalar surface tension γ under strong deformation.
    The DPD simulations report a single time-dependent γ from pressure anisotropy (Eq. 8), but the interface also has elastic/viscoelastic character that is not captured in the scaling; this is load-bearing for the quantitative prediction.
  • domain assumption The two-microgel DPD stretching geometry at constant velocity reproduces the interfacial behavior of the actual expanding SAW jet.
    The simulation in Section II.C stretches two microgels at a planar interface, a simplified analog of the jet surface; the extension rate (1 m/s) matches experiment but the geometry and flow field differ.
  • domain assumption Langmuir-Blodgett transfer at 5 mN/m approximates the interfacial microgel coverage during jetting.
    Used to link AFM monolayer structure to jetting behavior; the lateral pressure during jetting is not measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jetting with gels: Soft microgel networks stabilize and extend nozzle-free water jets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SHLOLM2M

@misc{pith2026250821147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jetting with gels: Soft microgel networks stabilize and extend nozzle-free water jets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SHLOLM2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21147}
}
read the original abstract

The stability of high-speed liquid jets is crucial for applications ranging from precision printing to needle-free drug delivery, yet it is fundamentally limited by capillary-driven breakup. A common strategy to stabilize jets is to use surfactants to lower surface tension. However, in nozzle-free jetting driven by surface acoustic waves (SAWs), extreme deformation rates cause conventional surfactants to desorb, calling for alternative strategies to stabilize jets. In particular, we find that tuning the nanoscale softness of PNIPAM microgels provides a robust, biocompatible strategy to overcome this limitation. Soft, low-cross-linker-density microgels form elastic interfacial networks at the air-water interface that suppress surface tension recovery, delay Rayleigh-Plateau instabilities, and extend SAW-driven jet lengths by up to 44%. In contrast, stiffer microgels lose network cohesion under strain, leading to rapid jet breakup. To gain molecular-level insights, we perform dissipative particle dynamics simulations, which reveal that polymer bridges in soft microgels remain entangled during elongation, maintaining a reduced effective surface tension. Finally, a simple scaling analysis, balancing the SAW-driven kinetic energy imparted to the droplet against the surface energy required to form a jet, quantitatively predicts the observed length enhancement. This surfactant-free, biocompatible approach lays the foundation for long-lived jets, enabling precision needle-free drug delivery, high-speed printing, and other high-strain interfacial flow applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21147 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SAW-driven jetting of microgel dispersions. (a) An aqueous droplet containing microgels of varying con￾centration and stiffness (cross-linker density) is gently placed at the centre of a SAW chip between two opposing interdigital transducers (IDTs). After allowing microgels to adsorb and equilibrate at the interface, a focused SAW field drives jet formation with diameter h and length L, recorded via high-speed imagi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of concentration and interfacial sta￾bilizer type on normalized jet length. Maximum jet length normalized by the droplet’s initial baseline (L/R) as a function of liquid concentration. Data are shown for pure water (concentration = 0, also showed with the dasshed line), C14TAB solutions at two different concentrations of about 0.01 and 0.3 CMC, and microgel dispersions with varying stiff￾ness (different cross… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ex-situ AFM characterization of microgel arrangements at the air–water interface. The structure of the microgel particles at constant lateral pressure through the AFM at 5 µm2 scan. The layers were transferred to a silicon wafer using a Langmuir trough method at a lateral pressure of 5mN/m for (a) MG1 (b) MG5 (c) MG10, The scales differ because the height of each scan varies significantly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic representation of a jet from a sub-CMC surfactant solution. (a) At low surfactant con￾centrations (sub-CMC), interfacial extension generates gra￾dients in surfactant coverage, driving Marangoni flows that transiently counteract breakup and extend jet length. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation snapshots of soft and stiff microgels at the air-water interface. Representative configurations of soft (a, b) and stiff (c, d) microgels (red beads) adsorbed at the air–water interface. Initially, two microgels are positioned in close lateral contact (a, c)…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated surface tension dynamics. Dy￾namic surface tension as a function of time for microgels with different cross-linker densities. The plot illustrates how vary￾ing the cross-linker concentration influences the rate at which the surface tension evolves, highlighti…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jetting with pure water (W ater.avi) : A 10- µl water droplet forms a jet under SA W excitation and breaks up after reaching its maximum length (10.82 mm)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Jetting with microgels (Microgel.avi): A 10- µl soft microgel (MG1) droplet forms a jet under SA W exci- tation and breaks up after reaching its maximum length (15.59 mm)

    work page

  3. [3]

    Computer simulation of soft microgels (Soft.mp4): During elongation, two soft microgels (MG2) remain interconnected, maintaining continuous coverage of the air–water interface

    work page

  4. [4]

    Computer simulation of stiff microgels (Stiff.mp4): Under identical conditions, two stiff mi- crogels (MG10) lose contact and disentangle, exposing bare air–water interface

    work page

  5. [5]

    D. T. A. Jordan, N. M. Ribe, A. Deblais, and D. Bonn, Chain oscillations in liquid jets, Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 104001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Deblais, M

    A. Deblais, M. A. Herrada, I. Hauner, K. P. Velikov, T. van Roon, H. Kellay, J. Eggers, and D. Bonn, Viscous effects on inertial drop formation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 254501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    A. S. Utada, A. Fernandez-Nieves, H. A. Stone, and D. A. Weitz, Dripping to jetting transitions in coflowing liquid streams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 094502 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    A. S. Utada, A. Fernandez-Nieves, J. M. Gordillo, and D. A. Weitz, Absolute instability of a liquid jet in a coflowing stream, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 014502 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    D. Lv, X. Liu, W. Li, Q. Zhang, X. Yu, and Y. Han, Single droplet formation by controlling the viscoelasticity of polymer solutions during inkjet printing, Chin. Chem. Lett. 35, 109401 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    E. J. Challita, P. Rohilla, and M. S. Bhamla, Fluid ejec- tions in nature, Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 15, 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-100722-113148 (2024). 10

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    E. J. Challita and M. S. Bhamla, Unifying fluidic ex- cretion across life from cicadas to elephants, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121, e2317878121 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    A. K. Kushwaha, M. B. Jones, J. Belden, N. Speirs, and T. T. Truscott, Transient fluted films behind falling water columns, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 224001 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    S. D. Hoath, O. G. Harlen, and I. M. Hutchings, Jetting behavior of polymer solutions in drop-on-demand inkjet printing, J. Rheol. 56, 1109 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Antonopoulou, O

    E. Antonopoulou, O. G. Harlen, M. Rump, T. Segers, and M. A. Walkley, Effect of surfactants on jet break- up in drop-on-demand inkjet printing, Phys. Fluids. 33, 10.1063/5.0056803 (2021)

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Lohse, Fundamental fluid dynamics challenges in inkjet printing, Annu

    D. Lohse, Fundamental fluid dynamics challenges in inkjet printing, Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech. 54, 349 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    S. Liu, C. Zhang, T. Shen, Z. Zhan, J. Peng, C. Yu, L. Jiang, and Z. Dong, Efficient agricultural drip irriga- tion inspired by fig leaf morphology, Nat. Commun. 14, 5934 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Eggers and E

    J. Eggers and E. Villermaux, Physics of liquid jets, Rep. Prog. Phys. 71, 036601 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    M. K. Tan, J. R. Friend, and L. Y. Yeo, Interfacial jetting phenomena induced by focused surface vibrations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 024501 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Lei and H

    Y. Lei and H. Hu, SA W-driven droplet jetting technology in microfluidic: A review, Biomicrofluidics 14, 061505 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Y. Wang, Y. Wang, H. Zhao, W. Li, and H. Liu, An experimental investigation on role of turbulence modu- lation induced by thread structure in coaxial air blast atomization of a surfactant-laden jet, Chem. Eng. Sci. 301, 120678 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Shavit and N

    U. Shavit and N. Chigier, The role of dynamic surface tension in air assist atomization, Phys. Fluids. 7, 24 (1995)

    1995

  14. [22]

    Christanti and L

    Y. Christanti and L. M. Walker, Surface tension driven jet break up of strain-hardening polymer solutions, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 100, 9 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    Y. Li, Z. Wang, B. Li, J. Tian, and K. Yu, Molecular dynamics simulation of the cone-jet electrospray: Role of surfactants, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.214, 124388 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    R. Sijs, S. Kooij, and D. Bonn, How surfactants influence the drop size in sprays from flat fan and hollow cone nozzles, Phys. Fluids. 33, 10.1063/5.0066775 (2021)

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Dechelette, O

    A. Dechelette, O. Campanella, C. Corvalan, and P. E. Sojka, An experimental investigation on the breakup of surfactant-laden non-Newtonian jets, Chem. Eng. Sci. 66, 6367 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    A. Toor, B. A. Helms, and T. P. Russell, Effect of nanoparticle surfactants on the breakup of free-falling water jets during continuous processing of reconfigurable structured liquid droplets, Nano Lett. 17, 3119 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Destribats, V

    M. Destribats, V. Lapeyre, M. Wolfs, E. Sellier, F. Leal- Calderon, V. Ravaine, and V. Schmitt, Soft microgels as pickering emulsion stabilisers: role of particle deforma- bility, Soft Matter 7, 7689 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Minato, M

    H. Minato, M. Murai, T. Watanabe, S. Matsui, M. Tak- izawa, T. Kureha, and D. Suzuki, The deformation of hydrogel microspheres at the air/water interface, Chem. Commun. 54, 932 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    M. Rey, M. A. Fernandez-Rodriguez, M. Karg, L. Isa, and N. Vogel, Poly-n-isopropylacrylamide nanogels and microgels at fluid interfaces, Acc. Mater. Res. 53, 414 (2020), pMID: 31940173

    2020

  22. [30]

    Scheffold, Pathways and challenges towards a complete characterization of microgels, Nat

    F. Scheffold, Pathways and challenges towards a complete characterization of microgels, Nat. Commun. 11, 4315 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    M. A. Fernandez-Rodriguez, A. Mart ´ ın-Molina, and J. Maldonado-Valderrama, Microgels at interfaces, from mickering emulsions to flat interfaces and back, Adv. Col- loid Interface Sci. 288, 102350 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Stock, S

    S. Stock, S. R¨ ohl, L. Mirau, M. Kraume, and R. von Kl- itzing, Maximum incorporation of soft microgel at inter- faces of water in oil emulsion droplets stabilized by solid silica spheres, Nanomaterials 12, 10.3390/nano12152649 (2022)

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    K¨ uhnhammer, K

    M. K¨ uhnhammer, K. Gr¨ aff, E. Loran, O. Soltwedel, O. L¨ ohmann, H. Frielinghaus, and R. von Klitzing, Struc- ture formation of pnipam microgels in foams and foam films, Soft Matter 18, 9249 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Grillo, M

    F. Grillo, M. A. Fernandez-Rodriguez, M.-N. Antonopoulou, D. Gerber, and L. Isa, Self-templating as- sembly of soft microparticles into complex tessellations, Nature 582, 219 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    K. Volk, F. Deißenbeck, S. Mandal, H. L¨ owen, and M. Karg, Moir´ e and honeycomb lattices through self- assembly of hard-core/soft-shell microgels: Experiment and simulation, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 21, 19153 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Menath, J

    J. Menath, J. Eatson, R. Brilmayer, A. Andrieu-Brunsen, D. M. A. Buzza, and N. Vogel, Defined core–shell parti- cles as the key to complex interfacial self-assembly, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2113394118 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Scotti, S

    A. Scotti, S. Bochenek, M. Brugnoni, M.-A. Fernandez- Rodriguez, M. F. Schulte, J. Houston, A. P. Gelissen, I. I. Potemkin, L. Isa, and W. Richtering, Exploring the colloid-to-polymer transition for ultra-low crosslinked mi- crogels from three to two dimensions, Nat. Commun. 1...

    2019

  30. [38]

    M. M. Schmidt, J. Ruiz-Franco, S. Bochenek, F. Camerin, E. Zaccarelli, and A. Scotti, Interfacial fluid rheology of soft particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 258202 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    M. E. Brito and C. Holm, Modeling microgel swelling: In- fluence of chain finite extensibility, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics 160, 10.1063/5.0205608 (2024)

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Del Monte and E

    G. Del Monte and E. Zaccarelli, Numerical study of neutral and charged microgel suspensions: From single- particle to collective behavior, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041067 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Geisel, L

    K. Geisel, L. Isa, and W. Richtering, Unraveling the 3d localization and deformation of responsive microgels at oil/water interfaces: a step forward in understanding soft emulsion stabilizers, Langmuir 28, 15770 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Camerin, N

    F. Camerin, N. Gnan, J. Ruiz-Franco, A. Ninarello, L. Rovigatti, and E. Zaccarelli, Microgels at interfaces behave as 2d elastic particles featuring reentrant dynam- ics, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031012 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Hazra, A

    N. Hazra, A. A. Rudov, J. Midya, A. Babenyshev, S. Bochenek, M. Frenken, W. Richtering, G. Gompper, T. Auth, I. I. Potemkin, and J. J. Crassous, Capillary- driven self-assembly of soft ellipsoidal microgels at the air–water interface, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121, e240369...

    2024

  36. [44]

    M. Rey, J. Kolker, J. A. Richards, I. Malhotra, T. S. Glen, N. D. Li, F. H. Laidlaw, D. Renggli, J. Vermant, A. B. Schofield, et al., Interactions between interfaces dic- tate stimuli-responsive emulsion behaviour, Nat. Com- 11 mun. 14, 6723 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    K. Chen, S. Zhou, and L. Wu, Self-healing underwater superoleophobic and antibiofouling coatings based on the assembly of hierarchical microgel spheres, ACS Nano 10, 1386 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    O’Rorke, A

    R. O’Rorke, A. Winkler, D. Collins, and Y. Ai, Slowness curve surface acoustic wave transducers for optimized acoustic streaming, RSC advances 10, 11582 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Tatry, E

    M.-C. Tatry, E. Laurichesse, J. Vermant, V. Ravaine, and V. Schmitt, Interfacial rheology of model water–air mi- crogels laden interfaces: Effect of cross-linking, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 629, 288 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Burmistrova, M

    A. Burmistrova, M. Richter, C. Uzum, and R. v. Klitz- ing, Effect of cross-linker density of P(NIPAM-co-AAc) microgels at solid surfaces on the swelling/shrinking be- haviour and the Young’s modulus, Colloid Polym. Sci. 289, 613 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Riaud, M

    A. Riaud, M. Baudoin, O. Bou Matar, J.-L. Thomas, and P. Brunet, On the influence of viscosity and caustics on acoustic streaming in sessile droplets: an experimental and a numerical study with a cost-effective method, J. Fluid Mech. 821, 384 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Stock, L

    S. Stock, L. Mirau, M. Rutsch, S. Wismath, M. Kupnik, R. von Klitzing, and A. Rahimzadeh, Ultrasound-induced adsorption of acousto-responsive microgels at water–oil interface, Adv. Sci. 11, 2305395 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Gerelli, F

    Y. Gerelli, F. Camerin, S. Bochenek, M. M. Schmidt, A. Maestro, W. Richtering, E. Zaccarelli, and A. Scotti, Softness matters: effects of compression on the behavior of adsorbed microgels at interfaces, Soft Matter 20, 3653 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    B. Ji, Z. Yang, and J. Feng, Compound jetting from bub- ble bursting at an air-oil-water interface, Nat. Commun. 12, 6305 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    M. Wu, Z. Ma, Z. Tian, J. T. Rich, X. He, J. Xia, Y. He, K. Yang, S. Yang, K. W. Leong, L. P. Lee, and T. J. Huang, Sound innovations for biofabrication and tissue engineering, Microsyst. Nanoeng. 10, 170 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    S. Loi, G. Sun, V. Franz, and H.-J. Butt, Rupture of molecular thin films observed in atomic force microscopy. ii. experiment, Phys. Rev. E 66, 031602 (2002)

    2002

  47. [55]

    Winkler, S

    A. Winkler, S. Harazim, D. Collins, R. Br¨ unig, H. Schmidt, and S. Menzel, Compact saw aerosol gen- erator, Biomed. Microdevices 19, 1 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Winkler, S

    A. Winkler, S. Harazim, S. Menzel, and H. Schmidt, Saw- based fluid atomization using mass-producible chip de- vices, Lab Chip 15, 3793 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Sablowski, L

    J. Sablowski, L. Galle, J. Grothe, M. Roudini, A. Win- kler, S. Unz, and M. Beckmann, Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Nucleation Site Density and Heat Transfer During Dropwise Condensation on Thin Hydrophobic Coatings, J. Heat Transfer 144, 10.1115/1.4053922 (202...

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    R. H. Pelton and P. Chibante, Preparation of aqueous latices with N-isopropylacrylamide, Colloids Surf.20, 247 (1986)

    1986

  51. [59]

    Backes and R

    S. Backes and R. Von Klitzing, Nanomechanics and nanorheology of microgels at interfaces, Polymers 10, 10.3390/polym10090978 (2018)

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    Picard, P

    C. Picard, P. Garrigue, M. C. Tatry, V. Lapeyre, S. Ra- vaine, V. Schmitt, and V. Ravaine, Organization of Mi- crogels at the Air-Water Interface under Compression: Role of Electrostatics and Cross-Linking Density, Lang- muir 33, 7968 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    Espanol and P

    P. Espanol and P. B. Warren, Perspective: Dis- sipative particle dynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 10.1063/1.4979514 (2017)

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    X. Wang, K. P. Santo, and A. V. Neimark, Modeling gas– liquid interfaces by dissipative particle dynamics: Ad- sorption and surface tension of cetyl trimethyl ammo- nium bromide at the air–water interface, Langmuir 36, 14686 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    J. D. Weeks, D. Chandler, and H. C. Andersen, Pertur- bation theory of the thermodynamic properties of simple liquids, J. Chem. Phys. 55, 5422 (1971)

    1971

  56. [64]

    Kremer and G

    K. Kremer and G. S. Grest, Dynamics of entangled lin- ear polymer melts: A molecular-dynamics simulation, J. Chem. Phys. 92, 5057 (1990)

    1990

  57. [65]

    Camerin, M

    F. Camerin, M. A. Fernandez-Rodriguez, L. Rovi- gatti, M.-N. Antonopoulou, N. Gnan, A. Ninarello, L. Isa, and E. Zaccarelli, Microgels adsorbed at liq- uid–liquid interfaces: A joint numerical and experimen- tal study, ACS Nano 13, 4548 (2019), pMID: 30865829, https://doi.org/...

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    G. D. Monte, D. Truzzolillo, F. Camerin, A. Ninarello, E. Chauveau, L. Tavagnacco, N. Gnan, L. Rovigatti, S. Sennato, and E. Zaccarelli, Two-step deswelling in the volume phase transition of thermoresponsive microgels, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2109560118 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Bochenek, F

    S. Bochenek, F. Camerin, E. Zaccarelli, A. Maestro, M. M. Schmidt, W. Richtering, and A. Scotti, In-situ study of the impact of temperature and architecture on the interfacial structure of microgels, Nature Commun. 13, 3744 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolin- tineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. In’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, et al. , Lammps-a flexible simulation tool for particle-based ma- terials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales, C...

    2022

Pith tools

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