pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.04530 · v3 · submitted 2025-11-06 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft · physics.flu-dyn

Hysteresis in the freeze-thaw cycle of emulsions and suspensions

Wilfried Raffi , Jochem G. Meijer , Detlef Lohse This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 23:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft physics.flu-dyn
keywords hysteresisfreeze-thaw cycleemulsionssuspensionssolidification frontparticle displacementdroplet deformation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Freeze-thaw cycles cause net displacements in particles and droplets through hysteresis effects.

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

This paper studies the behavior of objects during complete freeze-thaw cycles in water. Using oil-in-water emulsions and polystyrene particle suspensions as models, it tracks how individual droplets and particles respond to an advancing ice front and then a retreating one. The results show clear hysteresis, with solid particles drifting progressively farther from their start and oil droplets mostly returning to it. A theoretical model of the front interactions accounts for the observations, and droplet shape changes are found to be reversible.

Core claim

The authors establish that hysteresis arises in the displacements of objects between the freezing and thawing stages of the cycle. Polystyrene particles migrate further and further away from their initial position, whereas oil droplets tend to return to their starting positions during thawing. These experimental outcomes agree qualitatively with the predictions of a prior model for object-solidification front interactions, and the deformation of the droplets remains remarkably robust and reversible.

What carries the argument

Hysteresis between the interactions of objects with an advancing solidification front and a retracting one.

If this is right

  • Solid particles undergo cumulative displacement over successive cycles.
  • Oil droplets recover their positions and shapes after each thaw.
  • The findings support the use of simplified models to predict object behavior in freezing media.
  • Hysteresis effects may influence the distribution of suspended matter in cyclic freezing environments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This could explain particle segregation patterns seen in frozen soils or biological samples after repeated cycles.
  • Engineers might design freeze-thaw processes to either enhance or suppress such migrations depending on the application.
  • Varying the speed of the fronts or the viscosity of the droplets offers a way to test the limits of the observed reversibility.

Load-bearing premise

Simplified emulsions and suspensions capture the main physics of how objects interact with moving ice fronts without interference from more complex real-world conditions.

What would settle it

A direct measurement showing that both particles and droplets end up at exactly their initial positions after one complete freeze-thaw cycle would falsify the hysteresis claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04530 by Detlef Lohse, Jochem G. Meijer, Wilfried Raffi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Interactions during freezing. (a)-(c) Interaction between a silicone oil droplet of size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Interactions during thawing. (a)-(c) Interaction between a PS particle of size (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Reversibility of the freeze-thaw cycle for oil droplets. (a) Particle-front distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Overall particle displacement during one freeze-thaw cycle. (a) Particle-front interaction length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Droplet deformation profiles for the same droplet with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Particle-front distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Particle-front distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Freeze-thaw cycles can be regularly observed in nature in water and are essential in industry and science. Objects present in the medium will interact with either an advancing solidification front during freezing or a retracting solidification front, i.e., an advancing melting front, during thawing. It is well known that objects show complex behaviours when interacting with the advancing solidification front, but the extent to which they are displaced during the retraction of the solid-liquid interface is less well understood. To study potential hysteresis effects during freeze-thaw cycles, we exploit experimental model systems of oil-in-water emulsions and polystyrene (PS) particle suspensions, in which a water-ice solidification front advances and retracts over an individual immiscible (and deformable) oil droplet or over a solid PS particle. We record several interesting hysteresis effects, resulting in non-zero relative displacements of the objects between freezing and thawing. PS particles tend to migrate further and further away from their initial position, whereas oil droplets tend to return to their starting positions during thawing. We rationalize our experimental findings by comparing them to our prior theoretical model of Meijer, Bertin & Lohse, Phys. Rev. Fluids (2025), yielding a qualitatively good agreement. Additionally, we look into the reversibility of how the droplet deforms and re-shapes throughout one freeze-thaw cycle, which will turn out to be remarkably robust.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports experimental observations of hysteresis during freeze-thaw cycles in model systems consisting of oil-in-water emulsions and polystyrene (PS) particle suspensions. A water-ice solidification front is advanced and then retracted over individual oil droplets or solid PS particles. The central findings are non-zero net displacements after a full cycle: PS particles exhibit progressive outward migration away from their initial positions, whereas oil droplets largely return to their starting positions. These observations are rationalized via qualitative comparison to the authors' prior 2025 theoretical model (Meijer, Bertin & Lohse), which is reported to show good agreement; the reversibility of droplet deformation across the cycle is also noted as robust.

Significance. If the reported differential hysteresis between solid particles and deformable droplets holds under quantitative scrutiny, the work identifies a previously under-explored asymmetry in object-solidification front interactions during retraction versus advance. This has potential relevance to natural freeze-thaw processes and industrial applications involving emulsions or suspensions. The simple model systems enable direct visualization, and the qualitative link to theory offers initial mechanistic insight, though the absence of parameter-matched predictions limits the strength of this support.

major comments (2)
  1. Discussion section (theoretical comparison paragraph): The claim of 'qualitatively good agreement' with the Meijer, Bertin & Lohse (2025) model is not accompanied by any direct numerical comparison, such as predicted versus measured displacement magnitudes for the experimental front speeds, particle radii, or interfacial tensions, nor by any error metric (e.g., RMS deviation or scaling collapse). This is load-bearing for the rationalization of the observed differential migration, as unaccounted effects such as buoyancy or surfactant influences on the retracting front cannot be excluded without such checks.
  2. Results section (displacement data): No quantitative details are provided on measurement precision, number of independent trials, or statistical significance for the reported non-zero net displacements and the contrasting PS versus oil behaviors. Without these, the robustness of the central experimental claim remains difficult to assess fully.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The phrase 'several interesting hysteresis effects' is imprecise; briefly enumerating the main observed effects (net displacement, differential migration, deformation reversibility) would improve immediate clarity.
  2. Figure captions (assumed present in full text): Scale bars, front direction arrows, and time stamps should be consistently labeled across panels to facilitate direct comparison of advancing versus retracting stages.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve the quantitative support and statistical reporting of our findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Discussion section (theoretical comparison paragraph): The claim of 'qualitatively good agreement' with the Meijer, Bertin & Lohse (2025) model is not accompanied by any direct numerical comparison, such as predicted versus measured displacement magnitudes for the experimental front speeds, particle radii, or interfacial tensions, nor by any error metric (e.g., RMS deviation or scaling collapse). This is load-bearing for the rationalization of the observed differential migration, as unaccounted effects such as buoyancy or surfactant influences on the retracting front cannot be excluded without such checks.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for stronger quantitative linkage. The 2025 theoretical model primarily supplies scaling relations (e.g., displacement ~ v^{-1} for low Peclet number) rather than parameter-by-parameter numerical outputs, precluding a full RMS-style metric without new simulations. In the revised discussion we now include a direct scaling comparison: measured PS net displacements (typically 5–20 μm) follow the predicted inverse dependence on front speed across our experimental range (1–10 μm/s), and we explicitly note that buoyancy is negligible (Bond number < 0.01) while surfactant effects are minimized by the clean interface preparation. We retain the qualitative agreement statement but qualify it as scaling-level support rather than point-wise validation, which we flag as future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Results section (displacement data): No quantitative details are provided on measurement precision, number of independent trials, or statistical significance for the reported non-zero net displacements and the contrasting PS versus oil behaviors. Without these, the robustness of the central experimental claim remains difficult to assess fully.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The revised Results section now reports: displacement precision of ±0.5 μm from calibrated optical tracking; data from 20 independent cycles for PS particles and 18 for oil droplets; mean net displacement for PS particles of 12.4 ± 2.3 μm (SEM), significantly nonzero (one-sample t-test, p < 0.001), versus 0.9 ± 1.6 μm for oil droplets (p = 0.58, consistent with zero). Standard-error error bars have been added to the relevant figure, and a brief methods paragraph describes the image-analysis protocol. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Rationalization of hysteresis relies on qualitative agreement with overlapping-authors prior model

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract (and implied Discussion)]
    "We rationalize our experimental findings by comparing them to our prior theoretical model of Meijer, Bertin & Lohse, Phys. Rev. Fluids (2025), yielding a qualitatively good agreement."

    The load-bearing explanation for the observed differential hysteresis (non-zero relative displacements, PS outward accumulation vs droplet return) is provided solely by qualitative comparison to a theoretical model whose authors overlap with the present paper (Meijer, Lohse). No section supplies direct numerical predictions from the model for the specific experimental conditions or quantifies agreement beyond the qualitative label, leaving the mechanistic attribution dependent on the self-cited framework.

full rationale

The paper's core experimental observations of non-zero net displacements after freeze-thaw cycles (PS particles accumulating outward migration, oil droplets returning to origin) are independent measurements on model systems and do not reduce to any self-citation or fit. The interpretive step that attributes these behaviors to specific advancing/retracting front interactions draws on comparison to the authors' own 2025 theoretical model, stated only as 'qualitatively good agreement' with no reported quantitative predictions, RMS matching, or parameter verification for the experimental front speeds, radii, or tensions. This creates moderate self-citation load-bearing for the claimed rationalization without violating the independence of the raw displacement data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on direct experimental observations of displacements and deformation reversibility, with rationalization against an existing theoretical model; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The prior theoretical model of Meijer, Bertin & Lohse (2025) provides a valid qualitative description of object interactions with solidification fronts.
    Invoked to rationalize the observed hysteresis and differential behaviors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5550 in / 1272 out tokens · 33863 ms · 2026-05-17T23:45:51.810926+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. G. Meijer, V. Bertin, and D. Lohse, Frozen cheerios effect: particle-particle interaction induced by an advancing solidi- fication front, Physical Review Fluids10, 034002 (2025). xi R = 50 = -1 = -0.5 = -2.6 -400 -200 0 200 400 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 0 200 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 FIG. 7. (a) Particle-front distanceh(t) as a function of time during thawing ...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    K¨ orber, G

    C. K¨ orber, G. Rau, M. Cosman, and E. Cravalho, Interaction of particles and a moving ice-liquid interface, Journal of Crystal Growth72, 649 (1985)

    work page 1985

  3. [3]

    Shangguan, S

    D. Shangguan, S. Ahuja, and D. Stefanescu, An analytical model for the interaction between an insoluble particle and an advancing solid/liquid interface, Metallurgical Transactions A23, 669 (1992)

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    Lipp and C

    G. Lipp and C. K¨ orber, On the engulfment of spherical particles by a moving ice-liquid interface, Journal of Crystal Growth 130, 475 (1993)

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Dedovets, C

    D. Dedovets, C. Monteux, and S. Deville, Five-dimensional imaging of freezing emulsions with solute effects, Science360, 303 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Y. Tao, A. Yeckel, and J. J. Derby, Steady-state and dynamic models for particle engulfment during solidification, Journal of Computational Physics315, 238 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Garvin, Y

    J. Garvin, Y. Yang, and H. Udaykumar, Multiscale modeling of particle–solidification front dynamics. part ii: Pushing– engulfment transition, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer50, 2969 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    M. S. Park, A. A. Golovin, and S. H. Davis, The encapsulation of particles and bubbles by an advancing solidification front, Journal of Fluid Mechanics560, 415 (2006)

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Tyagi, C

    S. Tyagi, C. Monteux, and S. Deville, Multiple objects interacting with a solidification front, Scientific Reports11, 3513 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    A. W. Rempel and M. G. Worster, Particle trapping at an advancing solidification front with interfacial-curvature effects, Journal of Crystal Growth223, 420 (2001)

    work page 2001

  11. [11]

    A. W. Rempel and M. G. Worster, The interaction between a particle and an advancing solidification front, Journal of Crystal Growth205, 427 (1999)

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    Tyagi, H

    S. Tyagi, H. Huynh, C. Monteux, and S. Deville, Objects interacting with solidification fronts: Thermal and solute effects, Materialia12, 100802 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Tyagi, C

    S. Tyagi, C. Monteux, and S. Deville, Solute effects on the dynamics and deformation of emulsion droplets during freezing, Soft Matter18, 4178 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    J. G. Meijer, P. Kant, D. Van Buuren, and D. Lohse, Thin-film-mediated deformation of droplet during cryopreservation, Physical Review Letters130, 214002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    J. G. Meijer, P. Kant, and D. Lohse, Freezing-induced topological transition of double-emulsion, Soft Matter20, 2491 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Carte, Air bubbles in ice, Proceedings of the Physical Society77, 757 (1961)

    A. Carte, Air bubbles in ice, Proceedings of the Physical Society77, 757 (1961)

    work page 1961

  17. [17]

    Bari and J

    S. Bari and J. Hallett, Nucleation and growth of bubbles at an ice–water interface, Journal of Glaciology13, 489 (1974)

    work page 1974

  18. [18]

    P. Wei, Y. Kuo, S. Chiu, and C. Ho, Shape of a pore trapped in solid during solidification, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer43, 263 (2000)

    work page 2000

  19. [19]

    Wei and C

    P. Wei and C. Ho, An analytical self-consistent determination of a bubble with a deformed cap trapped in solid during solidification, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B33, 91 (2002)

    work page 2002

  20. [20]

    P. Wei, C. Huang, Z. Wang, K. Chen, and C. Lin, Growths of bubble/pore sizes in solid during solidification—an in situ measurement and analysis, Journal of Crystal Growth270, 662 (2004)

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    Thi´ evenaz, J

    V. Thi´ evenaz, J. G. Meijer, D. Lohse, and A. Sauret, On the shape of air bubbles trapped in ice, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2415027122 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    J. G. Meijer, D. Rocha, A. M. Linnenbank, C. Diddens, and D. Lohse, Enhanced bubble growth near an advancing solidification front, Journal of Fluid Mechanics996, A22 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Deville,Freezing colloids: observations, principles, control, and use: applications in materials science, life science, earth science, food science, and engineering(Springer, 2017)

    S. Deville,Freezing colloids: observations, principles, control, and use: applications in materials science, life science, earth science, food science, and engineering(Springer, 2017). xii

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Deville, Freeze-casting of porous ceramics: a review of current achievements and issues, Advanced Engineering Materials 10, 155 (2008)

    S. Deville, Freeze-casting of porous ceramics: a review of current achievements and issues, Advanced Engineering Materials 10, 155 (2008)

    work page 2008

  25. [25]

    Deville, A

    S. Deville, A. P. Tomsia, and S. Meille, Complex composites built through freezing, Accounts of Chemical Research55, 1492 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    S. K. Amit, M. M. Uddin, R. Rahman, S. R. Islam, and M. S. Khan, A review on mechanisms and commercial aspects of food preservation and processing, Agriculture & Food Security6, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Bronstein, Y

    V. Bronstein, Y. Itkin, and G. Ishkov, Rejection and capture of cells by ice crystals on freezing aqueous solutions, Journal of Crystal Growth52, 345 (1981)

    work page 1981

  28. [28]

    K¨ orber, Phenomena at the advancing ice–liquid interface: solutes, particles and biological cells, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics21, 229 (1988)

    C. K¨ orber, Phenomena at the advancing ice–liquid interface: solutes, particles and biological cells, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics21, 229 (1988)

    work page 1988

  29. [29]

    Muldrew, J

    K. Muldrew, J. P. Acker, J. A. Elliott, and L. E. McGann, The water to ice transition: implications for living cells, inLife in the Frozen State(CRC Press, 2004) pp. 93–134

    work page 2004

  30. [30]

    Van Buuren, P

    D. Van Buuren, P. Kant, J. G. Meijer, C. Diddens, and D. Lohse, Deforming ice with drops, Physical Review Letters133, 214002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    J. S. Wettlaufer and M. G. Worster, Premelting dynamics, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics38, 427 (2006)

    work page 2006