Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Divergent Impact Charging of Polymer Particles

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Impact charging of polymer particles diverges, not converges

desk verdict Fresh single-impact data show positive Δq–qi slopes for polymers, but a missing dynamic calibration leaves the divergent-charging claim not fully locked in. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.12951 v3 pith:5MWIWSNP submitted 2026-02-13 cond-mat.soft physics.chem-ph

Simon Jantač , Holger Grosshans This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.chem-ph
keywords contactelectrificationtriboelectricchargingpolymerparticlesdivergentimpactchargepre-impactacousticlevitationFaradaycageelectrometer
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 claims that for insulating polymer particles, the charge transferred on impact increases linearly with the particle's pre-impact charge, so each collision drives the particle away from a divergence point instead of toward a material-defined equilibrium. This contradicts the long-standing condenser-model assumption that pre-impact charge reduces impact charge. The authors show that conductive particles behave conventionally (slope near -1, charge converges to zero) while polymers show a small positive slope (β ≈ 0.04–0.07). They attribute the divergence to loosely bound atmospheric ions, attracted to the particle surface with opposite polarity, that transfer during contact. Reanalysis of earlier cascade experiments, after filtering by impact velocity, supports the divergent behavior.

What carries the argument

The central identity is the linear relation Δq = Δq0 + β qi, where the sign of β decides convergence (β<0) or divergence (β>0). For insulators, β is small and positive because the particle attracts loosely bound surface ions of opposite polarity, which transfer during contact and dominate the charge exchange; for conductors, mobile carriers blend with adsorbed ions and the slope approaches −1. The divergence point qi,0, where Δq=0, sets the charging polarity for any given pre-impact charge.

What would settle it

A direct test would measure the charge of a single polymer particle both with the Faraday-cage electrometer and with an independent method (e.g., a calibrated Kelvin probe or a Faraday cup after depositing a known charge) and show that the corrected trace deviates from the true charge with a slope that grows with charge amplitude. If the independent method yields a slope β ≤ 0 for the same material pair, the divergent result is an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For insulating polymer particles, the impact charge obeys Δq = Δq0 + β qi with β > 0, where qi is the pre-impact charge and Δq0 is the triboelectric contribution at zero pre-charge. Polarity is determined by the sign of qi − qi,0, where qi,0 is the divergence point at which net charge transfer reverses. For conductive particles, β ≈ −1, meaning the particle loses nearly all its pre-impact charge. The proposed mechanism is that insulating particles attract surrounding ions of opposite polarity to their bound charge; these weakly bound surface ions dominate charge transfer and produce the positive slope. The authors also show that previously scattered cascade data become clearly divergent when

Load-bearing premise

The measured pre-impact and impact charges are unbiased, so the leakage-correction constant and the 50-Hz grid subtraction do not artificially create a linear relationship that scales with signal amplitude; the paper provides no independent validation of the corrected charges against particles of known charge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Particle charging models based on the condenser picture (convergent behavior) are inadequate for insulating polymer powders; simulations of pneumatic conveying, fluidized beds, and powder handling must adopt the divergent linear relation or they will mispredict charge accumulation and polarity.
  • The polarity of a polymer particle after impact is not a fixed material property; it depends on the particle's charge history relative to the divergence point, meaning the same material pair can charge positively or negatively depending on the initial charge.
  • Repeated impacts on an insulating particle will amplify its charge rather than bring it to a stable equilibrium, potentially explaining runaway electrification and bipolar charging in industrial processes.
  • Single-impact experiments must control and measure the pre-impact charge precisely; otherwise the slope is hidden by scatter, which explains why many earlier studies reported no influence of pre-impact charge.
  • The divergence point and slope provide two new measurable parameters for each material pair, which could serve as a more complete characterization of triboelectric behavior than a single triboelectric series position.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is correct, the slope β should increase with relative humidity and ambient ion concentration, since more adsorbed ions would be available; a testable prediction is that drying the air or ionizing it should shift β accordingly.
  • The reanalysis of prior cascade data implies that published 'no-effect' results may have been artifacts of mixing impacts with different velocities; future studies should stratify by velocity and initial charge before concluding that pre-impact charge does not matter.
  • The universal small positive slope for polymers across very different material pairs suggests a common surface-state mechanism; one could test whether β correlates with surface oxidation or water-adsorption capacity of the polymer.
  • A practical consequence hinted at by the paper is that charge limits in polymers are set not by the contact itself but by environmental charge relaxation, so the measured maximum charge in a system depends on residence time and ion availability, not just material.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports single-particle impact-charging experiments for polymer particles (PMMA, PS) impacting various targets (PMMA, PTFE, aluminum, steel) and steel particles impacting steel. The central claim is that for insulating polymer particles the impact charge obeys Δq = Δq0 + β qi with β > 0 (Table I: β ≈ 0.04–0.07 pC/pC), so particles evolve away from a divergence point qi,0 rather than converging, while conductive steel particles show β ≈ −0.935, consistent with convergence. The authors propose a phenomenological model involving a loosely bound atmospheric-ion surface layer whose transfer during contact produces the positive slope, and they reanalyze previously published cascade data to argue that divergent charging is present there as well. The paper's evidence for the central claim is the linear regressions in Fig. 2, supported by the high R² for PS–PTFE and PMMA–Al, and the steel–steel control.

Significance. If the finding holds, it contradicts the condenser-model assumption that impact charge reduces pre-impact charge for insulating particles, with implications for powder charging, granular flows, and aerosol electrification. The experimental design is a strength: single controlled impacts, acoustic levitation, controlled humidity/temperature, and multiple material pairs including a conductive control. The steel–steel negative slope provides an internal check that the apparatus can produce convergent behavior. The paper also makes the data acquisition design publicly available. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a charge-extraction procedure whose dynamic correction is not independently validated, and two of the four polymer datasets have very low R². The proposed mechanism is ad hoc and not independently tested. Therefore the result is promising but not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. The central regression results are extracted from a single electrometer trace after 50-Hz subtraction (Eq. 4) and leakage correction (Eqs. 5–6) using a single fitted constant k = 4.9 s. No validation of the corrected charge against particles of independently known charge is reported. The static calibration against the Keithley 6517B (agreement within 2%) tests gain but not the dynamic leakage correction. If the correction is imperfect in a way that scales with signal amplitude, it adds a spurious linear term αqi to Δq. The observed polymer slopes are only 0.04–0.07 pC/pC; an α of this magnitude would manufacture the entire positive slope. The steel–steel slope (−0.935) is consistent with a true slope near −1 shifted by such an artifact (e.g., −1 + 0.06 ≈ −0.94), so it does not exclude this possibility. Please provide an independent dynamic validation, e.g., by releasing particles whose p
  2. Two of the four polymer datasets have very low coefficients of determination: PMMA–PMMA R²=0.26 and PMMA–steel R²=0.25. Although the 95% confidence intervals for β exclude zero (0.042±0.017 and 0.054±0.028 respectively), the vast majority of variance is unexplained. The abstract and conclusions generalize from these data to 'polymers' as a class. Please provide a quantitative treatment of the scatter—e.g., a discussion of its sources, a test that the positive-slope model is preferred over a null model for each dataset, or a demonstration that the low-R² points are consistent with the same underlying relation after accounting for uncontrolled variables. Without this, the universal 'polymers' claim is not supported by the two noisy datasets.
  3. The proposed explanation introduces a 'loosely bound surface ion layer' whose amount scales linearly with qi, has polarity opposite to the bound charge, and dominates the qi-dependent transfer. These properties are chosen to reproduce β>0; no independent measurement of such a layer is presented. As a phenomenological model this is acceptable, but the manuscript presents it as the mechanism. Please state explicitly that this is an untested hypothesis and propose a falsifiable test—e.g., measuring the dependence on ambient ion concentration, relative humidity, or surface conductivity—so that the model is not circular.
  4. The reanalysis of prior cascade data filters by impact velocity or impact number to reveal a positive slope. This post hoc filtering may introduce selection bias, especially because impact number and velocity are correlated with the charge history in a cascade. Fig. 4d shows only two representative trajectories without statistics over all particles. The earlier scattered data (Fig. 4a) are consistent with many possible models once subsets are selected. Please justify the filtering criterion a priori or systematically scan thresholds and report the sensitivity; otherwise the reanalysis is suggestive but not confirmatory.
minor comments (3)
  1. The phrase 'polymers' is used for what are actually PMMA and PS; 'all conducting particles' is claimed based only on steel. Please temper the generalization or add more materials.
  2. There is a typo: '(d PMMA particles versus a steel target' should be '(d) PMMA particles...'.
  3. Raw data are available only 'upon reasonable request.' Given the central claim and the potential for measurement artifacts, a public data repository would strengthen reproducibility. Also, reference [22] is cited as 'Phys. Rev. X, (2025)' with no volume/page—this should be completed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an experimental regression; the proposed ion-layer model is explicitly phenomenological and does not serve as the derivation of the fitted slope.

full rationale

The paper's central assertion (positive slope beta for insulating particles in Eq. (1)) is obtained by directly fitting measured (qi, Delta q) pairs; it is not derived from the proposed ion-layer mechanism. The model is explicitly called 'phenomenological' and is used only to interpret the sign of beta after the regression, so the model does not furnish a prediction that is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The reanalysis of earlier data is based on velocity filtering rather than on a fit to the present model, and the paper does not claim that the filtered slopes were predicted a priori. Self-citations appear in the introduction and in the list of prior divergent-charging observations, but none of these citations is invoked as the proof of the central result; the new experiments are self-contained. A remaining concern is that both qi and Delta q are extracted from the same electrometer trace after a leakage correction with a single fitted constant k, so an amplitude-dependent systematic error in that correction could in principle manufacture a spurious linear trend. That is a measurement-validity issue rather than a circular step unless the paper's own equations are shown to force the result; no such specific reduction is present. Therefore no circular step meeting the required evidence standard is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model is retrofitted to the measured linear relation: the two charge reservoirs are postulated, the proportionality of adsorbed ions to qi is assumed, and the transfer dominance of the ion layer is assumed. The slope β is fitted per material pair; no independent measurement of the ion layer or its transfer fraction is provided. The divergence claim itself rests on the regression plus the electrometer correction assumptions.

free parameters (7)
  • β (PMMA–PMMA) = 0.042 ± 0.017 pC/pC
    Linear regression slope of Δq vs qi in Fig. 2a; sign determines divergent charging.
  • β (PS–PTFE) = 0.071 ± 0.001 pC/pC
    Linear regression slope in Fig. 2b, R²=0.99.
  • β (PMMA–aluminum) = 0.043 ± 0.002 pC/pC
    Slope in Fig. 2c, R²=0.91.
  • β (PMMA–steel) = 0.054 ± 0.028 pC/pC
    Slope in Fig. 2d, R²=0.25.
  • β (steel–steel) = -0.935 ± 0.061 pC/pC
    Control slope for conductive particles, convergent.
  • Δq0 (triboelectric offset) = PMMA–PMMA -0.009; PS–PTFE 0.004; PMMA–Al -0.028; PMMA–steel -0.021; steel–steel 0.010 pC
    Intercept from the same regressions; attributed to material triboelectric series.
  • Leakage time constant k = 4.9 s
    Used to correct electrometer drift (Eq. 5); if in error, could introduce qi-dependent bias in Δq.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper A polymer particle's net pre-impact charge can be decomposed into a fixed bound charge and a surface layer of adsorbed ions of opposite polarity whose amount scales linearly with qi.
    Introduced in the phenomenological model and Fig. 3a; no direct measurement of the ion layer is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper During contact, the loosely bound surface ions, not the bound charge, dominate the qi-dependent part of charge transfer, with 0 < β ≪ 1.
    Assumed in the model; not derived from ion-transport physics.
  • domain assumption Steel particles have surface charge relaxation times short compared with contact time, so β ≈ -1.
    Standard for conductors; plausible but not measured here.
  • domain assumption Linear superposition of the 50-Hz grid signal and the particle-induced signal, with leakage correction Eq. (6), yields unbiased qi and Δq.
    Underlies all charge values; no validation with particles of independently known charge.
invented entities (2)
  • Loosely bound atmospheric-ion surface layer on polymer particles
    purpose: Explains positive β and divergence: ions of opposite sign to qi are attracted in proportion to qi and transfer during impact.
    The paper provides no direct measurement of such an ion layer; it is inferred from the measured slope.
  • Fixed bound charge inside polymer (e.g., oxidized polymer chains)
    purpose: Provides the background charge whose polarity determines which ions are attracted.
    Postulated; no spectroscopy or surface-charge measurement is offered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Divergent Impact Charging of Polymer Particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MWIWSNP

@misc{pith2026260212951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Divergent Impact Charging of Polymer Particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MWIWSNP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.12951}
}
read the original abstract

When a particle contacts a surface of another material, it is commonly believed that the particle acquires an impact charge that scales inversely with its pre-impact charge and whose polarity is set by the materials. We show that this belief holds for conductive particles but fails for polymers. For polymers, the impact charge increases linearly with the particle's pre-impact charge. Its polarity is not determined by the materials but by the pre-impact particle charge relative to a divergence point at which the net charge transfer reverses. We attribute this divergence to the attraction of surrounding ions to the particle surface. These attracted ions carry polarity opposite to that of the particle, and their amount scales with the particle charge. They transfer to the opposing surface during contact, thereby defining the impact charge. We propose a phenomenological model for the divergent impact charge arising from this mechanism. Finally, we reexamine previous measurements and show that they support this mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12951 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of the experimental apparatus and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. b shows the impact charge of PS particles col￾liding with a PTFE target as a function of pre-impact charge. Owing to their larger size, PS particles sustain higher charges and thus span a wider range of qi . The regression slope is again positive, demonstrating diver￾gent charging. The impact charge is fully determined by the pre-impact charge relative to the divergence point. Both positive and negative branches eme… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Phenomenological explanation for (a) divergent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Impact charge (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Details of the experimental apparatus. (a) Gor’kov potential of the standing acoustic wave that traps the particle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. It Takes Two to Tribo: Stochastic Charge Evolution in Repeated Binary Collisions of Acoustically Levitated Particles

    cond-mat.soft 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Repeated collisions between two levitated same-material particles accumulate charge toward a saturation plateau consistent with the condenser model, despite stochastic single-collision transfer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cimarelli and K

    C. Cimarelli and K. Genareau, A review of volcanic elec- trification of the atmosphere and volcanic lightning, J. Volcanol. Geothermi. Res.422, 107449 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    A. K. Kamra, Physical sciences: Visual observation of electric sparks on gypsum dunes, Nature240, 143 (1972)

    1972

  3. [3]

    Shinbrot, K

    T. Shinbrot, K. LaMarche, and B. J. Glasser, Tribo- electrification and razorbacks: Geophysical patterns pro- duced in dry grains, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 178002 (2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    M´ endez Harper, C

    J. M´ endez Harper, C. S. McDonald, E. J. Rheingold, L. C. Wehn, R. E. Bumbaugh, E. J. Cope, L. E. Lind- berg, J. Pham, Y.-H. Kim, J. Dufek, and C. H. Hen- don, Moisture-controlled triboelectrification during cof- fee grinding, Matter7, 266 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Jantaˇ c and H

    S. Jantaˇ c and H. Grosshans, Suppression and control of bipolar powder charging by turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 054004 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Giffin and P

    A. Giffin and P. Mehrani, Effect of gas relative humidity on reactor wall fouling generated due to bed electrifica- tion in gas-solid fluidized beds, Powder Technol.235, 368 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    ˇSutka, L

    A. ˇSutka, L. Lapˇ cinskis, D. He, H. Kim, J. D. Berry, J. Bai, M. Knite, A. V. Ellis, C. K. Jeong, and P. C. Sherrell, Engineering polymer interfaces: A review to- ward controlling triboelectric surface charge, Adv. Mater. Interfaces10, 2300323 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    D. J. Lacks and T. Sinbrot, Long-standing and unre- solved issues in triboelectric charging, Nat. Rev. Chem. 3, 465 (2019)

    2019

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Sotthewes, H

    K. Sotthewes, H. J. G. E. Gardeniers, G. Desmet, and I. S. M. Jimidar, Triboelectric charging of particles, an ongoing matter: From the early onset of planet formation to assembling crystals, ACS Omega7, 41828 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Crovetto, H

    A. Crovetto, H. Hempel, M. Rusu, L. Choubrac, D. Ko- jda, K. Habicht, and T. Unold, Water adsorption en- hances electrical conductivity in transparent p-type cui, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces12, 48741 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Amiour, Z

    N. Amiour, Z. Ziari, and S. Sahli, Traps energy distribu- tion in Kapton HN polyimide films through surface po- tential decay model under humidity conditions, J. Elec- trostat.109, 103551 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    C. A. Mizzi, A. Y. W. Lin, and L. D. Marks, Does flex- oelectricity drive triboelectricity?, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 116103 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    T. Siu, J. Cotton, G. Mattson, and T. Shinbrot, Self- sustaining charging of identical colliding particles, Phys. Rev. E89, 052208 (2014). 6

    2014

  6. [14]

    Yoshimatsu, N

    R. Yoshimatsu, N. A. M. Ara´ ujo, G. Wurm, H. J. Her- rmann, and T. Shinbrot, Self-charging of identical grains in the absence of an external field, Sci. Rep.7, 39996 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Jantaˇ c, J

    S. Jantaˇ c, J. Pelcov´ a, J. Sklen´ aˇ rov´ a, M. Dr´ apela, H. Grosshans, and J. Kosek, Triboelectric charging model for particles with rough surfaces, Adv. Powder Technol. 36, 104787 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    J. C. Sobarzo, F. Pertl, D. M. Balazs, T. Costanzo, M. Sauer, A. Foelske, M. Ostermann, C. M. Pichler, Y. Wang, Y. Nagata, M. Bonn, and S. Waitukaitis, Spon- taneous ordering of identical materials into a triboelectric series, Nature638, 664 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Ozler and H

    G. Ozler and H. Grosshans, Secondary flows drive tri- boelectric powder charging in pneumatic conveying, J. Fluid Mech.1007, A52 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    W. John, G. Reischl, and W. Devor, Charge transfer to metal surfaces from bouncing aerosol particles, J. Aerosol Sci.11, 115 (1980)

    1980

  11. [19]

    Laurentie, P

    J. Laurentie, P. Traor´ e, and L. Dascalescu, Discrete ele- ment modeling of triboelectric charging of insulating ma- terials in vibrated granular beds, J. Electrostat.71, 951 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Matsusaka, M

    S. Matsusaka, M. Ghadiri, and H. Masuda, Electrification of an elastic sphere by repeated impacts on a metal plate, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys.33, 2311 (2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    Pei, C.-Y

    C. Pei, C.-Y. Wu, D. England, S. Byard, H. Berchtold, and M. Adams, Numerical analysis of contact electrifica- tion using DEM-CFD, Powder Technol.248, 34 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Grosshans, G

    H. Grosshans, G. Ozler, V. Veeravalli, and S. Jantaˇ c, Unifying same- and different-material particle charging through stochastic scaling, Phys. Rev. X , (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Grosjean and S

    G. Grosjean and S. Waitukaitis, Asymmetries in tri- boelectric charging: Generalizing mosaic models to different-material samples and sliding contacts, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 065601 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    C. Han, Q. Zhou, J. Hu, C. Liang, X. Chen, and J. Ma, The charging characteristics of particle–particle contact, J. Electrostat.112, 103582 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Kaponig, A

    M. Kaponig, A. M¨ olleken, H. Nienhaus, and R. M¨ oller, Dynamics of contact electrification, Sci. Adv.7, eabg7595 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Grosjean and S

    G. Grosjean and S. Waitukaitis, Single-collision statistics reveal a global mechanism driven by sample history for contact electrification in granular media, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 098202 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    P. M. Ireland, Impact tribocharging of soft elastic spheres, Powder Technol.348, 70 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    A. G. Kline, M. X. Lim, and H. M. Jaeger, Precision mea- surement of tribocharging in acoustically levitated sub- millimeter grains, Rev. Sci. Instrum.91, 023908 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Matsuyama, M

    T. Matsuyama, M. Ogu, H. Yamamoto, J. C. M. Mar- ijnissen, and B. Scarlett, Impact charging experiments with single particles of hundred micrometre size, Powder Technol.135–136, 14 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Konopka, S

    L. Konopka, S. Jantaˇ c, M. Vrz´ aˇ cek, M. Svoboda, and J. Kosek, Triboelectric charging of polyethylene powders: Comparison of same-material and different-material con- tributions to the charge build-up, Powder Technol.367, 713 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Schella, S

    A. Schella, S. Herminghaus, and M. Schr¨ oter, Influence of humidity on tribo-electric charging and segregation in shaken granular media, Soft Matter13, 394 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Jantaˇ c, L

    S. Jantaˇ c, L. Konopka, and J. Kosek, Experimental study of triboelectric charging of polyethylene powders: Effect of humidity, impact velocity and temperature, Adv. Pow- der Technol.30, 148 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Grosshans, W

    H. Grosshans, W. Xu, and T. Matsuyama, Simulation of pmma powder flow electrification using a new charging model based on single-particle experiments, Chem. Eng. Sci.254, 117623 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Chowdhury, M

    F. Chowdhury, M. Ray, A. Passalacqua, P. Mehrani, and A. Sowinski, Electrostatic charging due to individ- ual particle-particle collisions, Powder Technol.381, 352 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Chowdhury, B

    F. Chowdhury, B. Elchamaa, M. Ray, A. Sowinski, A. Passalacqua, and P. Mehrani, Apparatus design for measuring electrostatic charge transfer due to particle- particle collisions, Powder Technol.361, 860 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Obukohwo, S

    O. Obukohwo, S. Jantaˇ c, A. Sowinski, P. Mehrani, and H. Grosshans, A novel apparatus for particle-particle sin- gle contact electrification experiments, Powder Technol. accepted(2026)

    2026

  29. [37]

    Grosshans and M

    H. Grosshans and M. V. Papalexandris, A model for the non-uniform contact charging of particles, Powder Tech- nol.305, 518 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    K. M. Forward, D. J. Lacks, and R. M. Sankaran, Charge segregation depends on particle size in triboelectrically charged granular materials, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 028001 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    T. F. O’Hara, D. P. Reid, G. L. Marsden, and K. L. Aplin, Faraday cup measurements of triboelectrically charged granular material: a modular interpretation methodol- ogy, Soft Matter21, 855 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Matsuyama and H

    T. Matsuyama and H. Yamamoto, Maximum electro- static charge of powder in pipe flow, Adv. Powder. Tech- nol.21, 350 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Korevaar,Particles in charge: An experimental and numerical study on the tribo-electric charging of pneumatically conveyed powders(Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 2016)

    M. Korevaar,Particles in charge: An experimental and numerical study on the tribo-electric charging of pneumatically conveyed powders(Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    P´ erez, M

    N. P´ erez, M. A. B. Andrade, R. Canetti, and J. C. Adamowski, Experimental determination of the dynam- ics of an acoustically levitated sphere, J. Appl. Phys.116, 184903 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    J. C. Crocker and D. G. Grier, Methods of digital video microscopy for colloidal studies, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 179, 298 (1996). END MA TTER Acoustic Levitation—The acoustic trap consists of a standing acoustic wave between an ultrasonic trans- ducer (Hielscher UIP 500hdT ...

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.