pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.03514 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Surface-access limitation in catalytic porous monoliths: Performance diagnosis using pore-resolved CFD

Olivier Gu\'evremont , Olivier Gazil , Federico Galli , Nick Virgilio , Bruno Blais This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 17:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords porous monolithscatalytic reactorspore-resolved CFDsurface access limitationflow maldistributiontriply periodic minimal surfacesmicroCT imagingpressure drop
0
0 comments X

The pith

In catalytic porous monoliths, structure-dependent surface accessibility governs reactor performance rather than intrinsic kinetics or diffusion.

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

Porous monoliths are valued as catalyst supports for their high area and stability, yet their complex internal channels make it hard to predict conversion from bulk measures like porosity or surface area. Pore-resolved CFD on microCT scans of palladium-coated silicone monoliths performing p-nitrophenol reduction reveals that flow maldistribution leaves large fractions of the catalytic surface unused, even at low Damköhler numbers. A pseudo-heterogeneous eggshell model calibrated on one sample transfers across different monoliths and flow rates, confirming that conversion shows little sensitivity to changes in diffusivity or reaction rate. When random and triply periodic minimal surface monoliths are compared at matched porosity and area, the latter require up to an order of magnitude less pumping power to reach the same molar production rate.

Core claim

In heterogeneous systems affected by surface-access limitations, reactor performance is governed by structure-dependent surface accessibility rather than intrinsic kinetics or molecular diffusion alone. Validated reactive pore-resolved CFD in microCT-based geometries diagnoses this limitation through the weak influence of diffusivity and kinetics on conversion and shows that, for matched porosity and surface area, triply periodic minimal surface monoliths achieve the same production rate with up to an order of magnitude lower pumping power than random structures.

What carries the argument

Pore-resolved CFD simulations on microCT-derived monolith geometries combined with a calibrated pseudo-heterogeneous eggshell reaction model that isolates surface-access effects from bulk transport and kinetics.

If this is right

  • Conversion in surface-access-limited regimes is controlled primarily by monolith topology and flow distribution.
  • Triply periodic minimal surface topologies can deliver equivalent molar output at substantially lower pumping power than random monoliths.
  • Standard macroscopic descriptors such as porosity and tortuosity are insufficient to rank reactor performance.
  • Validated pore-resolved CFD supplies a practical method to screen and optimize porous catalyst supports under realistic conditions.
  • Surface-access limitations remain decisive even when the Damköhler number is below one.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same diagnostic could be applied to other porous-media reactors in adsorption or separation to reveal hidden utilization losses.
  • Fabrication routes that deliberately target minimal-surface topologies may become preferred when energy cost of pumping is a primary constraint.
  • Similar accessibility bottlenecks are likely to appear in non-catalytic porous devices such as filters or heat exchangers whenever flow paths are uneven.
  • Coupling pore-resolved CFD with automated geometry generators could accelerate identification of optimal monolith designs for given production targets.

Load-bearing premise

The calibrated pseudo-heterogeneous eggshell model accurately represents the actual surface reaction while the microCT geometries and PRCFD simulations correctly capture flow maldistribution.

What would settle it

An experiment on the same monolith geometry and flow rate that shows conversion rising sharply when molecular diffusivity is increased or when the intrinsic reaction rate constant is raised would indicate that surface access is not the dominant limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03514 by Bruno Blais, Federico Galli, Nick Virgilio, Olivier Gazil, Olivier Gu\'evremont.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Monoliths after PdNPs synthesis. The 45 min (A) and 60 min (B) monoliths di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Digitised samples of 45 min (A) and 60 min (B). The pores are larger for longer annealing durations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: EDS spectrum analysis (A) of circled region of the surface of PdNP@silicone (B). The image corresponds to the interface of the sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Conversion of p-nitrophenol after flow-through PdNP@silicone monoliths, measured by UV-vis. Plotted values represent the mean, and error bars (standard deviation) are calculated from three data points. 3. Calibration and validation In this section, we focus on the calibration of the reactive parameters followed by validation of the model through transferability to other samples, ensuring its predictivity. … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation domain (A) with the encapsulated monolith (shaded green cylinder) and its support (B). Length units are centimetres. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Best fit curves of reaction constants k0 and thicknesses εk where the signed error between experimental and simulated conversions is zero. The curves are interpolated from 5 × 5 parametric sweeps and based on the conversion data from the sample 60 min #2. The shaded bands represent the confidence interval (CI) obtained from the experimental conversions. simulated), shown in more details in Appendix G. The … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pareto plot of experimental-simulated pairs of conversions, at flow rates of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance of digitised random monoliths, TPMS-based structures (simple and double surface) and a packed bed as monolith reactors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Surface distribution of the reaction efficiency across digitised random monoliths (45 min #1 − 3, 60 min #1 − 3), structured TPMS-based monoliths (simple and double surface types D, Gyroid, IWP, Multiscale gyroid, P), and a packed bed. Each row corresponds to a flow rate, where the base flow rate Q = 0.013 mL s−1 . The first column displays the random monoliths, the second the simple surface TPMS-based str… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Local reaction efficiency of the sample 45 min #2 (A) and the simple TPMS-based Type D structure (B), at a flow rate of 0.013 mL s−1 . Each structure corresponds to a quarter of its source geometry. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Slices across the flow axis X of 45 min #2 (A), 60 min #2 (B), and the simple TPMS-based Type D structure (C), at a flow rate of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Conversion versus Damköhler number for random monoliths, structured monoliths, and a packed bed. The CSTR and PFR models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Porous monoliths are promising catalyst supports due to their high surface area, interconnected channels, thermal stability and mechanical robustness. However, their tunable topology complicates design: trade-offs between conversion and pressure drop are not reliably captured by macroscopic descriptors, such as porosity, specific surface area, or tortuosity. Pore-resolved computational fluid dynamics~(PRCFD) addresses this gap by resolving pore-scale flow and transport, enabling diagnostics and discrimination between macroscopically similar structures. We investigate surface-access-boundedness: a case where conversion is limited by flow maldistribution and incomplete utilisation of the catalytic surface, even at low Damk\"ohler numbers (Da<1). Using palladium-nanoparticle-coated silicone monoliths for p-nitrophenol reduction, we perform reactive PRCFD in microcomputed-tomography-based geometries, calibrate a pseudo-heterogeneous eggshell reaction model, and validate transferability across samples and flow rates. We then diagnose surface-access-boundedness via the limited influence of diffusivity and reaction kinetics on conversion. Furthermore, we compare synthesised random monoliths with triply periodic minimal surface structures under matched porosity and surface area. Significantly, the required pumping power can decrease by up to an order of magnitude for the same molar production rate, depending on topology. These results show that, in heterogeneous systems affected by surface-access limitations, reactor performance is governed by structure-dependent surface accessibility rather than intrinsic kinetics or molecular diffusion alone, and that validated reactive PRCFD provides a practical framework to diagnose and compare porous reactor geometries under realistic operating conditions.

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 uses pore-resolved CFD (PRCFD) on microCT-derived geometries of Pd-nanoparticle-coated silicone monoliths to study p-nitrophenol reduction. It calibrates a pseudo-heterogeneous eggshell reaction model against overall conversion data, validates transferability across samples and flow rates, diagnoses surface-access-boundedness by demonstrating limited sensitivity of conversion to molecular diffusivity and intrinsic kinetics at Da<1, and compares random monoliths against triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structures at matched porosity and surface area, reporting up to an order-of-magnitude reduction in required pumping power for equivalent molar production rate. The central claim is that, under surface-access limitations, reactor performance is governed by structure-dependent surface accessibility rather than intrinsic kinetics or diffusion alone.

Significance. If the eggshell-model calibration robustly separates kinetics from transport, the work supplies a validated PRCFD framework for diagnosing topology-driven limitations in porous reactors that macroscopic descriptors (porosity, specific surface area, tortuosity) cannot capture. The topology comparison and pumping-power result offer concrete, falsifiable guidance for designing lower-energy catalytic monoliths, extending beyond the specific chemistry to heterogeneous systems where flow maldistribution dominates.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2 (Model calibration) and Section 4.3 (Sensitivity analysis)] The diagnosis that conversion is insensitive to diffusivity and reaction kinetics (while remaining sensitive to topology) under Da<1 rests on the calibrated pseudo-heterogeneous eggshell model. Because the model parameters are fitted to overall conversion obtained from the same PRCFD runs, any unaccounted flow maldistribution or incomplete surface utilization can be absorbed into the effective kinetic constants, rendering the subsequent 'limited influence' observation potentially circular rather than an independent test. Please specify the exact data partition used for calibration versus validation, report the fitted parameter values with uncertainties, and provide an independent check (e.g., comparison against a known intrinsic rate or a separate non-reactive tracer experiment) that the parameters remain transport-independent.
  2. [Section 4.3 and Eq. defining Da] The claim of surface-access-boundedness requires explicit confirmation that the Damköhler number remains <1 after parameter fitting and that the observed insensitivity is not an artifact of the eggshell assumption. Table or figure showing conversion versus Da (or versus diffusivity at fixed Da) for multiple topologies should be added, together with the precise definition of Da employed (including the length scale and reference concentration).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that transferability is validated 'across samples and flow rates' but does not report quantitative metrics (e.g., mean absolute percentage error or R² values). Add these numbers and the number of independent samples used.
  2. [Section 2 (Numerical methods)] Mesh-convergence and time-step independence for the PRCFD simulations are not mentioned; a brief statement or supplementary table confirming that conversion changes by less than 2 % upon refinement would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation remains self-contained

full rationale

The paper calibrates a pseudo-heterogeneous eggshell model to PRCFD conversion data in microCT geometries, validates transferability across independent samples and flow rates, then performs sensitivity analysis on diffusivity and intrinsic kinetics to diagnose surface-access boundedness. This chain does not reduce any load-bearing prediction to its fitted inputs by construction: the transferability validation and topology comparisons (random vs. TPMS under matched porosity/surface area) supply independent content. No self-citation is load-bearing, no ansatz is smuggled, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The diagnosis of limited influence is an outcome of the validated simulations rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the calibrated eggshell model and the assumption that pore-scale CFD faithfully reproduces accessibility effects; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Eggshell model kinetic parameters
    Calibrated to experimental conversion data for the p-nitrophenol reduction.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Pseudo-heterogeneous eggshell model sufficiently approximates the surface reaction for the purposes of this diagnosis.
    Invoked to enable reactive PRCFD without full heterogeneous surface resolution.
  • domain assumption MicroCT-derived geometries are representative of the physical monolith samples.
    Basis for all pore-resolved simulations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5593 in / 1311 out tokens · 55131 ms · 2026-05-13T17:44:38.170725+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. S. Fogler, Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering (4th Edition), 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Cybulski, J

    A. Cybulski, J. A. Moulijn, Structured catalysts and reactors, CRC press, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    S. Roy, T. Bauer, M. Al-Dahhan, P. Lehner, T. Turek, Monoliths as multiphase reactors: a review, AIChE journal 50 (2004) 2918–2938

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Kapteijn, J

    F. Kapteijn, J. A. Moulijn, Structured catalysts and reactors - perspectives for demanding applications, Catalysis Today 383 (2022) 5–14. doi:10.1016/J.CATTOD.2020.09.026. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920586120306829

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cattod.2020.09.026 2022

  5. [5]

    M. A. Chen, S. H. Lee, P. K. Kang, Inertia-induced mixing and reaction maximization in laminar porous media flows, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121 (2024) e2407145121

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    R. C. Acharya, A. J. Valocchi, C. J. Werth, T. W. Willingham, Pore-scale simulation of dispersion and reaction along a transverse mixing zone in two-dimensional porous media, Water resources research 43 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Ganguli, V

    A. Ganguli, V . Bhatt, A. Yagodnitsyna, D. Pinjari, A. Pandit, A review of pressure drop and mixing characteris- tics in passive mixers involving miscible liquids, Micromachines 15 (2024) 691

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Tomaši´c, F

    V . Tomaši´c, F. Jovi ´c, State-of-the-art in the monolithic catalysts/reactors, Applied Catalysis A: General 311 (2006) 112–121. doi:10.1016/J.APCATA.2006.06.013. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926860X0600473X

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apcata.2006.06.013 2006

  9. [9]

    Koufou, S

    D. Koufou, S. Kuhn, Scaling up 3d-printed porous reactors for the continuous synthesis of 2, 5-diformylfuran, ACS Engineering Au 4 (2023) 213–223

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    A. J. C. Ladd, P. Szymczak, Reactive flows in porous media: Challenges in theoretical and numerical methods, Annual review of chemical and biomolecular engineering 12 (2021) 543–571

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Gascon, J

    J. Gascon, J. R. V . Ommen, J. A. Moulijn, F. Kapteijn, Structuring catalyst and reactor–an inviting avenue to process intensification, Catalysis Science & Technology 5 (2015) 807–817. 20

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    Levenspiel, Chemical reaction engineering, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 38 (1999) 4140–

    O. Levenspiel, Chemical reaction engineering, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 38 (1999) 4140–

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/ie990488g

    doi:10.1021/ie990488g. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/ie990488g

    work page doi:10.1021/ie990488g

  14. [14]

    G. F. Froment, K. B. Bischoff, J. D. Wilde, Chemical reactor analysis and design, V ol. 2, Wiley New York, 1990

    work page 1990

  15. [15]

    Whitaker, Flow in porous media i: A theoretical derivation of darcy’s law, Transport in porous media 1 (1986) 3–25

    S. Whitaker, Flow in porous media i: A theoretical derivation of darcy’s law, Transport in porous media 1 (1986) 3–25. doi:whitaker1986darcy

    work page 1986

  16. [17]

    Delgado, A critical review of dispersion in packed beds, Heat and mass transfer 42 (2006) 279–310

    J. Delgado, A critical review of dispersion in packed beds, Heat and mass transfer 42 (2006) 279–310

    work page 2006

  17. [18]

    Golfier, C

    F. Golfier, C. Zarcone, B. Bazin, R. Lenormand, D. Lasseux, M. Quintard, On the ability of a darcy-scale model to capture wormhole formation during the dissolution of a porous medium, Journal of fluid Mechanics 457 (2002) 213–254

    work page 2002

  18. [19]

    Whitaker, The method of volume averaging, V ol

    S. Whitaker, The method of volume averaging, V ol. 13, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  19. [20]

    Transport in Ordered and Disordered Porous Media: Volume-Averaged Equations, Closure Problems, and Comparison with Experiment , shorttitle =

    M. Quintard, S. Whitaker, Transport in ordered and disordered porous media: volume-averaged equations, closure problems, and comparison with experiment, Chemical Engineering Science 48 (1993) 2537–2564. doi:10.1016/0009-2509(93)80266-S. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000925099380266S

    work page doi:10.1016/0009-2509(93)80266-s 1993

  20. [21]

    Bérard, B

    A. Bérard, B. Blais, G. S. Patience, Experimental methods in chemical engineering: Resi- dence time distribution—rtd, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 98 (2020) 848–867. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.23711. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cjce.23711

    work page doi:10.1002/cjce.23711 2020

  21. [22]

    P. V . Danckwerts, Distribution of residence time, Chem. Eng. Sci 2 (1953)

    work page 1953

  22. [23]

    T. E. Geitani, S. Golshan, B. Blais, A high-order stabilized solver for the volume averaged navier-stokes equa- tions, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 95 (2023) 1011–1033

    work page 2023

  23. [24]

    M. J. Blunt, B. Bijeljic, H. Dong, O. Gharbi, S. Iglauer, P. Mostaghimi, A. Paluszny, C. Pentland, Pore- scale imaging and modelling, Advances in Water Resources 51 (2013) 197–216, 35th Year Anniversary Issue. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.03.003. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309170812000528

    work page doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.03.003 2013

  24. [25]

    Flaischlen, T

    S. Flaischlen, T. Turek, G. D. Wehinger, Local structure effects on hydrodynamics in slender fixed bed reactors: Spheres and rings, Chemical Engineering Journal 475 (2023) 146342. doi:10.1016/J.CEJ.2023.146342

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cej.2023.146342 2023

  25. [26]

    Belot, D

    I. Belot, D. Vidal, R. Greiner, M. V otsmeier, R. E. Hayes, F. Bertrand, Impact of washcoat distribution on the catalytic performance of gasoline particulate filters as predicted by lattice boltzmann simulations, Chemical Engineering Journal 406 (2021) 127040

    work page 2021

  26. [27]

    J. E. Santos, B. Chang, A. Gigliotti, Y . Yin, W. Song, M. Prodanovi ´c, Q. Kang, N. Lubbers, H. Viswanathan, A dataset of 3d structural and simulated transport properties of complex porous media, Scientific Data 9 (2022) 579

    work page 2022

  27. [28]

    Noiriel, C

    C. Noiriel, C. Soulaine, Pore-scale imaging and modelling of reactive flow in evolving porous media: Tracking the dynamics of the fluid–rock interface, Transport in porous media 140 (2021) 181–213. 21

    work page 2021

  28. [29]

    Jurtz, M

    N. Jurtz, M. Kraume, G. D. Wehinger, Advances in fixed-bed reactor modeling using particle-resolved computa- tional fluid dynamics (cfd), Reviews in Chemical Engineering 35 (2019) 139–190. doi:doi:10.1515/revce-2017- 0059. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1515/revce-2017-0059

    work page doi:10.1515/revce-2017- 2019

  29. [30]

    Boigné, T

    E. Boigné, T. Zirwes, D. Y . Parkinson, G. Vignat, P. Muhunthan, H. S. Barnard, A. A. MacDowell, M. Ihme, Integrated experimental and computational analysis of porous media combustion by combining gas-phase synchrotronµct, ir-imaging, and pore-resolved simulations, Combustion and Flame 259 (2024) 113132. doi:10.1016/J.COMBUSTFLAME.2023.113132

    work page doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2023.113132 2024

  30. [32]

    J. Maes, H. P. Menke, Geochemfoam: Direct modelling of multiphase reactive transport in real pore geometries with equilibrium reactions, Transport in Porous Media 139 (2021) 271–299

    work page 2021

  31. [33]

    Guévremont, L

    O. Guévremont, L. Barbeau, V . Moreau, F. Galli, N. Virgilio, B. Blais, Pore-resolved cfd in digital twin of porous monoliths reconstructed by micro-computed tomography (2024). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04711

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [34]

    Y . Dong, O. Korup, J. Gerdts, B. R. Cuenya, R. Horn, Microtomography-based cfd modeling of a fixed-bed re- actor with an open-cell foam monolith and experimental verification by reactor profile measurements, Chemical Engineering Journal 353 (2018) 176–188. doi:10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.07.075

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cej.2018.07.075 2018

  33. [35]

    B. E. Rittmann, P. L. McCarty, Environmental biotechnology: principles and applications, (No Title) (2001)

    work page 2001

  34. [36]

    Gazil, J

    O. Gazil, J. Bernardi, A. Lassus, N. Virgilio, M. M. Unterlass, Urethane functions can reduce metal salts under hydrothermal conditions: synthesis of noble metal nanoparticles on flexible sponges applied in semi-automated organic reduction, Journal of Materials Chemistry A 11 (2023) 12703–12712

    work page 2023

  35. [37]

    Chatterjee, S

    S. Chatterjee, S. K. Bhattacharya, Size-dependent catalytic activity of pva-stabilized palladium nanoparticles in p-nitrophenol reduction: using a thermoresponsive nanoreactor, ACS omega 6 (2021) 20746–20757

    work page 2021

  36. [38]

    Russo, L

    V . Russo, L. Mastroianni, R. Tesser, T. Salmi, M. D. Serio, Intraparticle modeling of non-uniform active phase distribution catalyst, ChemEngineering 4 (2020) 24

    work page 2020

  37. [39]

    B. D. Wood, X. He, S. V . Apte, Modeling turbulent flows in porous media, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 52 (2020) 171–203

    work page 2020

  38. [40]

    Alphonius, L

    A. Alphonius, L. Barbeau, B. Blais, O. Gaboriault, O. Guévremont, J. Lamouche, P. Laurentin, O. Marquis, P. Munch, V . O. Ferreira, et al., Lethe 1.0: An open-source high-performance and high-order computational fluid dynamics software for single and multiphase flows, Available at SSRN 5090483 (2025)

    work page 2025

  39. [41]

    Arndt, W

    D. Arndt, W. Bangerth, M. Bergbauer, B. Blais, M. Fehling, R. Gassmöller, T. Heister, L. Heltai, M. Kronbichler, M. Maier, et al., The deal. ii library, version 9.7, Journal of Numerical Mathematics 33 (2025) 403–415

    work page 2025

  40. [42]

    Blais, L

    B. Blais, L. Barbeau, V . Bibeau, S. Gauvin, T. E. Geitani, S. Golshan, R. Kamble, G. Mirakhori, J. Chaouki, Lethe: An open-source parallel high-order adaptative cfd solver for incompressible flows, SoftwareX 12 (2020) 100579. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2020.100579. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352711020302922

    work page doi:10.1016/j.softx.2020.100579 2020

  41. [43]

    A. Hay, S. Etienne, D. Pelletier, A. Garon, hp-adaptive time integration based on the bdf for viscous flows, Journal of Computational Physics 291 (2015) 151–176. doi:10.1016/J.JCP.2015.03.022. 22

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.03.022 2015

  42. [44]

    Esquirol, P

    A.-L. Esquirol, P. Sarazin, N. Virgilio, Tunable porous hydrogels from cocontinuous polymer blends, Macro- molecules 47 (2014) 3068–3075. doi:10.1021/ma402603b. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/ma402603b

    work page doi:10.1021/ma402603b 2014

  43. [45]

    Gazil, T

    O. Gazil, T. Gancheva, B. D. B.-C. Michel, Favis, N. Virgilio, Controlling the distribution of nanoparticles in hydrogels via interfacial synthesis, Nanoscale Adv. 2 (2020) 5263–5270

    work page 2020

  44. [46]

    Gostick, M

    J. Gostick, M. Aghighi, J. Hinebaugh, T. Tranter, M. A. Hoeh, H. Day, B. Spellacy, M. H. Sharqawy, A. Bazy- lak, A. Burns, W. Lehnert, A. Putz, Openpnm: A pore network modeling package, Computing in Science & Engineering 18 (2016) 60–74. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2016.49

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2016.49 2016

  45. [47]

    J. T. Gostick, Z. A. Khan, T. G. Tranter, M. D. R. Kok, M. Agnaou, M. Sadeghi, R. Jervis, Porespy: A python toolkit for quantitative analysis of porous media images, Journal of Open Source Software 4 (2019) 1296

    work page 2019

  46. [48]

    J. T. Gostick, Versatile and efficient pore network extraction method using marker-based watershed segmenta- tion, Physical Review E 96 (2017) 23307

    work page 2017

  47. [49]

    C. L. Y . Yeong, S. Torquato, Reconstructing random media, Phys. Rev. E 57 (1998) 495–506. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.57.495. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.57.495

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.57.495 1998

  48. [50]

    C. L. Y . Yeong, S. Torquato, Reconstructing random media. ii. three-dimensional media from two-dimensional cuts, Phys. Rev. E 58 (1998) 224–233. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.58.224. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.58.224

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.58.224 1998

  49. [51]

    Seida, N

    Y . Seida, N. Sonetaka, K. E. Noll, E. Furuya, Determination of pore and surface diffusivities from single decay curve in csbr based on parallel diffusion model, Water 14 (2022) 3629

    work page 2022

  50. [52]

    C. R. Wilke, P. Chang, Correlation of diffusion coefficients in dilute solutions, AIChE journal 1 (1955) 264–270

    work page 1955

  51. [53]

    P. A. Patience, C. Audet, B. Blais, Cesogen: Cellular solid generator, Available at SSRN 5129471 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [54]

    Ayachit, The paraview guide: a parallel visualization application, Kitware, Inc., 2015

    U. Ayachit, The paraview guide: a parallel visualization application, Kitware, Inc., 2015

    work page 2015

  53. [55]

    W. L. Oberkampf, C. J. Roy, Verification and validation in scientific computing, Cambridge University Press, 2010

    work page 2010

  54. [56]

    P. J. Roache, Verification of codes and calculations, AIAA journal 36 (1998) 696–702. Appendix A. Immobilization capsule geometry Figure A.13shows of the acrylic tube assembly in which each synthesised monolith is immobilised. Appendix B. Porous characteristics distributions Figure B.14shows the pore size distribution of each monolith (45 min and 60 min a...

    work page 1998

  55. [57]

    Monolith, bounded by a cylinder of radius 0.44 and length 0.6, centred around (0,0,0) and oriented in the X-axis

    work page

  56. [58]

    Hyperrectangle, centred around (0,0,0), with lengths of (1.2,1.2,1.2)

    work page

  57. [59]

    Cylinder of radius 0.44 and length 0.6, centred around (0,0,0) and oriented in the X-axis

    work page

  58. [60]

    The boolean operations are:

    Cylinder of radius 0.31 and length 1.2, centred around (0,0,0) and oriented in the X-axis. The boolean operations are:

    work page

  59. [61]

    Hollowed hyperrectangle=2\3

    work page

  60. [62]

    Pierced hollowed hyperrectangle=5\4

    work page

  61. [63]

    Appendix G

    Support with inserted monolith=6∪1. Appendix G. Calibration data per flow rate Figure G.20shows each flow rate’s individual calibration map for the sample 60 min #2. The subplots present different optimal curves (zero-error isovalue), but all follow the same trends. The isovalues being more concentrated in lower flow rates make sense given that accessibil...

    work page