Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

This paper claims that when two sessile droplets containing dilute dumbbell particles coalesce, the capillary flow aligns the dumbbells along the coalescence direction, and the final mean nematic order is governed by a single effective geom

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 11:44 UTC pith:5QPPH7ZI

load-bearing objection Solid LBM study with a genuinely new two-stage picture; the qualitative claims hold, but the chi_eff master curve is a four-parameter fit to the same data it claims to explain and needs independent testing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29201 v1 pith:5QPPH7ZI submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.soft physics.flu-dyn

Coalescence-induced alignment of anisotropic particles in drying sessile droplets

Johannes Sch\"ottner , Qingguang Xie , Jens Harting This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft physics.flu-dyn
keywords sessile dropletscoalescencenematic orderanisotropic particlesdumbbellsevaporationcontact anglelattice Boltzmann
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Two sessile droplets containing dilute dumbbell particles are shown to act as an orientational pre-treatment before drying: the capillary flow generated when the droplets coalesce aligns the dumbbells along the coalescence direction, and the amount of final alignment is set by a single effective geometric asymmetry, χeff = χκ + χV, the sum of a curvature (Laplace-pressure) asymmetry and a volume asymmetry. The simulation data for many contact-angle and base-radius combinations collapse onto one master curve as a function of this parameter, so the curve predicts the mean nematic order at the end of coalescence from the initial droplet geometry alone. During the drying stage, the receding contact angle controls whether that pre-alignment survives: small angles keep the contact line pinned longer and preserve order, whereas large angles trigger earlier recession, weaken global order, and drive stronger accumulation of dumbbells near the bridge region. The paper offers this as a physical framework and explicitly calls the master-curve fit empirical, not a universal law. If correct, it gives a practical design rule for droplet-based printing: choose droplet-volume and contact-angle asymmetries to set the orientation, then choose the receding contact angle to decide whether the pattern is retained.

Core claim

The central claim is that coalescence itself is a primary orientation mechanism for anisotropic particles in sessile droplet printing, not just a precursor to drying. In quasi-two-dimensional simulations, bridge formation drives capillary flow along the coalescence axis, aligning two-bead dumbbells; the later relaxation toward a merged circular-cap shape either continues or reverses the trend depending on whether the net liquid redistribution opposes the initial motion. The paper quantifies this with two signed measures—χκ, the normalized difference of the droplets' curvatures (Laplace pressures), and χV, the normalized difference of their volumes—and shows that the end-of-coalescence mean n

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective geometric asymmetry χeff = χκ + χV. Here χκ measures the left–right imbalance in droplet curvature, which sets the capillary-pressure difference that drives the early bridge flow, and χV measures the left–right imbalance in liquid volume, which determines how much material must be redistributed while the merged droplet relaxes. Because for circular caps the volume scales inversely with the square of the curvature, the paper derives χV ≈ −χκ to first order, so χeff is the residual after the two leading effects almost cancel. This residual, rather than either asymmetry alone, is what collapses the final nematic order onto the master curve ⟨Sx⟩c = S0 + S

Load-bearing premise

The entire collapse onto a master curve depends on the assumption that differences in droplet curvature and differences in droplet volume push particles in equal and opposite ways. The paper's own estimate makes these two effects almost exactly cancel, leaving a much smaller residual; if that cancellation is not exactly right, the collapse could be an artifact of the way the two numbers were combined.

What would settle it

Run the coalescence simulations for two different droplet pairs that share the same value of χeff but have opposite contributions from χκ and χV (for example, one pair with a larger left curvature and smaller left volume, another with the reverse), and compare their final mean nematic order. If the master curve is physical, the two end-of-coalescence orders agree; if they differ systematically, the collapse is a consequence of the chosen parameterization. A more direct check is to turn on only curvature asymmetry or only volume asymmetry and compare the magnitudes of the induced alignment—the

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • End-of-coalescence alignment becomes predictable from initial geometry alone: compute χeff and read ⟨Sx⟩c off the master curve, without simulating the full two-droplet flow.
  • Equal droplets (χeff = 0) still acquire a moderate baseline alignment; introducing asymmetry can either raise or lower the final order, including driving it down through flow reversal.
  • The same geometric asymmetry can be used in droplet-based printing as a dial for the strength of coalescence-imprinted orientation, with larger positive χeff giving the strongest alignment.
  • During drying, the receding contact angle is a separate handle: a small θr preserves coalescence order but limits particle transport, while a large θr sacrifices order for stronger concentration gradients in the deposit.
  • Substrate friction sets the late-time recovery: low friction lets near-surface dumbbells reorient and partially restore order, while high friction immobilizes them near their minimum-order state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the master-curve claim implies a falsifiable equivalence—any two droplet pairs with the same χeff should give the same end-of-coalescence order even if their curvature and volume asymmetries are individually very different; this is directly checkable and would separate a physical scaling from a parameterization artifact.
  • Extension: in experiments, droplets' volumes and contact angles are rarely controlled so that V ∝ κ⁻² holds exactly, so the equal-and-opposite balance that makes χeff a near-cancelling sum may need reweighting; a generalized form aχκ + bχV might be needed.
  • Extension: because drying creates coupled gradients of concentration and orientation—many weakly aligned dumbbells at the bridge, few strongly aligned ones on the other side—the next step is to ask what these gradients do to a material property such as conductivity or stiffness; the paper explicitly leaves this open.
  • Extension: the quasi-two-dimensional geometry suppresses out-of-plane rotation; in a real three-dimensional droplet, dumbbells can tumble out of the substrate plane, so the quantitative master curve may shift even if the qualitative mechanism survives.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses color-gradient lattice-Boltzmann simulations of quasi-two-dimensional sessile droplets, coupled to bead-spring dumbbells, to study how asymmetric coalescence and subsequent evaporation set orientational order. It reports that bridge growth follows a t^{2/3} law; that coalescence aligns dumbbells along the coalescence direction; that the final mean nematic order collapses when plotted against an effective geometric asymmetry chi_eff = chi_kappa + chi_V via a tanh fit (Eq. 26); and that during drying, smaller receding contact angles preserve alignment better while larger receding angles produce stronger concentration gradients (Fig. 6). The central conceptual claim is that chi_eff governs the final nematic order at the end of coalescence.

Significance. If the collapse is genuine, the paper offers a simple geometric design rule for controlling orientational order in droplet-based printing and a useful two-stage picture connecting coalescence flow to the dried deposit. The evaporation phenomenology and the bridge-growth benchmark are useful contributions. The manuscript is also transparent about data availability and parameter choices, which supports reproducibility. However, the validation of chi_eff is currently insufficient: the parameter is constructed from an unverified equal-opposite-strength assumption and a similarity-based derivation that does not cover the simulated parameter range. The central scaling claim therefore needs additional evidence before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III C, Eqs. (24)–(25)] The estimate chi_V ≈ −chi_kappa in Eq. (24) is obtained from V ∝ kappa^{-2}, which the text itself restricts to geometrically similar circular caps ('For geometrically similar quasi-two-dimensional circular caps...'). The simulations vary theta^0_L/theta^0_R independently of a^0_L/a^0_R, so for most simulated pairs this similarity condition is violated. When similarity fails, chi_V/chi_kappa is not −1; indeed, the spread of chi_eff shown in Fig. 5 (−0.6 to 0.6) must arise from this breakdown, since under the similarity assumption chi_eff ≈ 0. The paper therefore uses a parameter whose construction is only justified in a limit where it nearly vanishes. Please quantify the deviation over the explored grid, e.g., by plotting chi_V + chi_K versus the asymmetry ratios, and state explicitly for which data Eq. (24) is a valid approximation.
  2. [§III C, preceding Eq. (25) and Fig. 5] The load-bearing assumption behind chi_eff = chi_K + chi_V is that the flows induced by chi_K and chi_V are 'of comparable strength and exert equal but opposite effects on dumbbell alignment.' This is asserted, not tested. A smooth trend in Fig. 5 does not establish the equal-weight combination, because a monotone surface over a 2D grid can often be approximated by a function of a single linear combination. The authors should add control simulations with matched chi_eff but different (chi_K, chi_V) pairs and show that the final order is the same. Alternatively, fit the final order as a function of chi_K and chi_V with separate coefficients and show that the equal-weight model is not rejected. Without such a test, the master curve may be a parameterization artifact rather than a physical scaling.
  3. [§III C, Eq. (26)] The tanh curve in Eq. (26) is fitted to the same simulation data it is used to summarize, and the collapse is judged visually. The disclaimer that Eq. (26) is not a universal constitutive law is helpful, but the central claim that chi_eff 'governs' the final nematic order needs more than a good in-sample fit. Please report the number of data points, residual statistics, and an out-of-sample check (e.g., cross-validation) to distinguish a compact empirical summary from an overfitted description. This is particularly important because the four adjustable parameters (S0, S_sat, chi_c, w) are free.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption and §III C text] The caption says 'exponential fit given by Eq. 26' and the text near Eq. (26) says 'empirical exponential response function', but Eq. (26) is a hyperbolic tangent. Please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Eq. (7)] The WCA-type potential is written as epsilon[(d0/d)^12 - 2(d0/d)^6] + epsilon, which is not the standard WCA form (usually 4 epsilon[...] + epsilon). Clarify whether this is intentional or a typographical error.
  3. [Sec. III C / Fig. 4(a)] Fig. 4(a) colors curves by chi_eff, but chi_eff is introduced only in Sec. III C. Add a forward reference or define the parameter earlier to avoid confusing readers.
  4. [Sec. II C, Eq. (13)] The manuscript uses 'area' for the quasi-2D cap and later states V_i ∝ A_cap,i. It would be clearer to define V_i = A_cap,i in the methods or explicitly state the constant out-of-plane depth, so the volume asymmetry in Eq. (17) is unambiguous.
  5. [Fig. 4(b) and Eq. (14)] The solid neutral-redistribution line is defined by A_M,L - A_0,L = 0, but the equilibrium contact angle used to construct the final merged cap is not specified. Please state the assumed final contact angle, as the line may depend on it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the effective asymmetry parameter χeff is built from initial geometry only, and the master curve is explicitly a fit to the simulation data rather than a prediction.

full rationale

The central collapse claim (Eqs. 25–26, Fig. 5) is not circular by construction. χκ (Eq. 16) and χV (Eq. 17) are defined solely from initial droplet curvature and volume, while the target ⟨Sx⟩_c is measured from the dumbbell orientations. χeff = χκ + χV (Eq. 25) is a deterministic combination of these geometric inputs and never uses the nematic order. The master curve (Eq. 26) is explicitly presented as an empirical fit: "The fit is used only as a compact master curve for the present data, not as a universal constitutive law." Thus the paper summarizes its own simulation results with a fitting function rather than dressing a fitted parameter as an independent prediction. The derivation χV ≈ −χκ (Eq. 24) and the assumption that the two flows are "of comparable strength and exert equal but opposite effects" raise scientific concerns about whether χeff is meaningfully nonzero and whether the collapse is physically discriminating; these are correctness/robustness issues, not circularity. Self-citations in the methods section (e.g., Refs. 41–42) are used for model parametrization and are supported by the paper's own benchmark (bridge height hb ∝ t^(2/3) against the capillary–inertial reference) and by the explicitly stated LBM equations. No equation in the paper reduces to the measured output by definition, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a standard LBM/dumbbell modeling chain plus an empirical collapse. The key parameterization (χeff) depends on an ad hoc equal/opposite-strength assumption, and four fit constants are necessary to draw the master curve. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • S0 = 0.17 ± 0.05
    Offset in the empirical tanh response (Eq. 26), fitted to coalescence simulations in Fig. 5; no independent prediction.
  • S_sat = 0.28 ± 0.07
    Amplitude of the tanh master curve, fitted to the same data.
  • χ_c = -0.31 ± 0.11
    Center of the tanh master curve, fitted to the same data.
  • w = 0.52 ± 0.14
    Width of the tanh master curve, fitted to the same data.
  • J0 = 0.0005 (lattice units)
    Characteristic evaporation rate in Eq. (5), adopted from prior Hertz–Knudsen/thin-film models; affects the drying stage but not the coalescence master curve.
  • K = 10
    Dimensionless kinetic resistance in Eq. (5), adopted from previous water-droplet evaporation models; controls contact-line recession timing.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Quasi-2D cylindrical-cap geometry captures the physics of 3D sessile droplet coalescence and drying
    All simulations are 2D caps extended out of plane; the conclusion acknowledges that extending to 3D is future work.
  • domain assumption Color-gradient LBM with continuum surface force and the Akai wetting boundary reproduces coalescence and evaporation in the capillary-inertial regime
    Used throughout Methods; validated only by the bridge-growth exponent benchmark in Fig. 2.
  • domain assumption Dumbbells are passive probes with negligible back-coupling (small Stokes number, initially 5% volume fraction)
    Stated in §II B/C; central to interpreting alignment as a flow tracer; local crowding appears late in drying but is not modeled in detail.
  • domain assumption Evaporation is reaction-limited and follows the thin-droplet Hertz–Knudsen flux J = J0/(K + h̃)
    Eq. (5); adopted from prior models; only valid for spherical-cap thin droplets, hence evaporation is switched off during coalescence.
  • ad hoc to paper Curvature and volume asymmetries generate flows of comparable strength and equal but opposite effect on alignment
    Between Eqs. (24) and (25); this assumption defines χeff = χκ + χV and is not independently tested.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical response function S0 + S_sat tanh((χeff − χ_c)/w) is an adequate summary of the data
    Eq. (26); the authors state it is a compact fit, not a universal constitutive law.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 14415 in / 14891 out tokens · 152291 ms · 2026-08-03T11:44:20.858086+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Alignment of anisotropic particles strongly governs the functional properties of printed materials, yet most studies have focused on particle alignment in single evaporating droplets. In droplet- based printing, however, neighboring droplets can coalesce, generating rapid capillary flows that redistribute material and markedly affect the final morphology. Here, we use mesoscale simulations to investigate how droplet coalescence and subsequent evaporation jointly determine alignment and redistribution in sessile droplets with different contact angles and volumes. During the early stages of coalescence, the mean nematic order along the coalescence direction increases for all combinations of contact-angle and volume asymmetries of the droplets. At later times, the mean nematic order either continues to increase or decreases, depending on the droplet geometry. We derive a geometric scaling based on curvature and volume asymmetry and show that the simulation results collapse onto a master curve, identifying an effective geometric asymmetry parameter that governs the mean nematic order at the end of coalescence. During evaporation, the contact angle strongly influences how the coalescence-induced orientational structure is transferred to the final deposit. For small contact angles, the contact line remains pinned for a longer duration, better preserving alignment. In contrast, larger contact angles promote contact-line motion, which weakens alignment, as reflected by a reduced mean nematic order, while simultaneously generating stronger concentration gradients in the final deposit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29201 by Jens Harting, Johannes Sch\"ottner, Qingguang Xie.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Side view of the temporal evolution of a quasi-two-dimensional liquid interface, indicated by gray contour lines. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Bridge-height evolution during the coalescence of two asymmetric droplets. The initial droplets have the same base [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Snapshots of pure-liquid coalescence. The gray contour line indicates the liquid–gas interface, while the arrows show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Nematic alignment induced by asymmetric droplet coalescence. (a) Temporal evolution of the mean nematic order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Collapse of the final mean nematic order in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Temporal evolution of dumbbell alignment and spatial distributions of dumbbell concentration and alignment during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗

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

53 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    H. H. Dong, Y. Y. Choi, S. Y. Ki, D.-H. Kim, and J. H. Cho, Getting in line: Filler alignment strategies for anisotropic composite fabrication, Compos. Part B Eng.305, 112626 (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    C. Hou, Z. Chen, Z. Chang, and L.-T. Yan, Self-assembly of anisotropic nano-building-blocks, Next Nanotechnol.8, 100185 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Liu and B

    Q. Liu and B. Xu, Liquid-evaporation-assisted self-folding of one-dimensional nanomaterials, J. Phys. Chem. C122, 3078 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    V. R. Dugyala and M. G. Basavaraj, Evaporation of sessile drops containing colloidal rods: Coffee-ring and order–disorder transition, J. Phys. Chem. B119, 3860 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    M. A. Hack, W. Tewes, Q. Xie, C. Datt, K. Harth, J. Harting, and J. H. Snoeijer, Self-similar liquid lens coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 194502 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    P. R. Kaneelil, K. Tojo, P. K. Farsoiya, L. Deike, and H. A. Stone, Coalescence of viscoelastic sessile drops: the small and large contact angle limits, J. Fluid Mech.1026, A12 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    Scheel, Q

    T. Scheel, Q. Xie, M. Sega, and J. Harting, Viscous to inertial coalescence of liquid lenses: A lattice boltzmann investigation, Phys. Rev. Fluids8, 074201 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Eggers, J

    J. Eggers, J. E. Sprittles, and J. H. Snoeijer, Coalescence dynamics, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.57, 61 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    S. C. Varma, A. Saha, and A. Kumar, Coalescence of polymeric sessile drops on a partially wettable substrate, Phys. Fluids 33, 123101 (2021). 14

    2021

  10. [10]

    S. C. Varma, A. S. Rajput, and A. Kumar, Rheocoalescence: Relaxation time through coalescence of droplets, Macro- molecules55, 6031 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    V. S. Sivasankar, D. R. Hines, and S. Das, Numerical study of the coalescence and mixing of drops of different polymeric materials, Langmuir38, 14084 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    Arbabi and P

    S. Arbabi and P. E. Theodorakis, Coalescence of sessile polymer droplets: A molecular dynamics study, Macromol. Theory Simul.32, 2300017 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    H. L. Fran¸ ca, D. Tieman, J. D. Shemilt, C. Oishi, and M. Jalaal, Coalescence of printed yield stress filaments in direct ink writing, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. , 105642 (2026)

    2026

  14. [14]

    Farrokhi, P

    S. Farrokhi, P. Rostami, G. K. Auernhammer, and S. Hardt, Breakup of viscous liquid bridges on solid surfaces, J. Fluid Mech.1016, A22 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    J. F. Hernandez Sanchez, L. A. Lubbers, A. C. A. Eddi, and J. H. Snoeijer, Symmetric and asymmetric coalescence of drops on a substrate, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 184502 (2012)

    2012

  16. [16]

    H. Xu, X. Ge, T. Wang, and Z. Che, Coalescence of immiscible sessile droplets on a partial wetting surface, J. Fluid Mech. 971, A34 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    N. D. Pawar, S. S. Bahga, S. R. Kale, and S. Kondaraju, Symmetric and asymmetric coalescence of droplets on a solid surface in the inertia-dominated regime, Phys. Fluids31, 092106 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    M. A. Hack, P. Vondeling, M. Cornelissen, D. Lohse, J. H. Snoeijer, C. Diddens, and T. Segers, Asymmetric coalescence of two droplets with different surface tensions is caused by capillary waves, Phys. Rev. Fluids6, 104002 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    X. Yang, V. H. Chhasatia, J. Shah, and Y. Sun, Coalescence, evaporation and particle deposition of consecutively printed colloidal drops, Soft Matter8, 9205 (2012)

    2012

  20. [20]

    T. C. Sykes, D. Harbottle, Z. Khatir, H. M. Thompson, and M. C. T. Wilson, Substrate wettability influences internal jet formation and mixing during droplet coalescence, Langmuir36, 9596 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    X. Luo, K. Xu, W. Li, X. Huang, and L. He, Mixing characteristics and energy conversion in the coalescence process of the two droplets, Chem. Eng. Sci.248, 117153 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    A. C. Kandemir, S. N. Ramakrishna, D. Erdem, D. Courty, and R. Spolenak, Gradient nanocomposite printing by dip pen nanolithography, Compos. Sci. Technol.138, 186 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    X. Wu, S. Wang, J. Zhao, J. Li, Z. Li, P. Murto, Z. Wang, and X. Xu, Hygroscopic core-shell matrices via coaxial multi-material printing for tailored atmospheric water sorption, Adv. Funct. Mater.36, e74625 (2026)

    2026

  24. [24]

    Sutanto, K

    E. Sutanto, K. Shigeta, Y. K. Kim, P. G. Graf, D. J. Hoelzle, K. L. Barton, A. G. Alleyne, P. M. Ferreira, and J. A. Rogers, A multimaterial electrohydrodynamic jet (e-jet) printing system, J. Micromech. Microeng.22, 045008 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    Kr¨ uger, H

    T. Kr¨ uger, H. Kusumaatmaja, A. Kuzmin, O. Shardt, G. Silva, and E. M. Viggen,The Lattice Boltzmann Method: Principles and Practice(Springer International Publishing, 2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    H. Liu, Q. Kang, C. R. Leonardi, S. Schmieschek, A. Narvaez, B. D. Jones, J. R. Williams, A. J. Valocchi, and J. Harting, Multiphase lattice boltzmann simulations for porous media applications - a review, Comput. Geosci.20, 777 (2016)

    2016

  27. [27]

    Xie and J

    Q. Xie and J. Harting, Simulations of inertial liquid-lens coalescence with the pseudopotential lattice Boltzmann method, Capillarity18, 41 (2026)

    2026

  28. [28]

    Hessling, Q

    D. Hessling, Q. Xie, and J. Harting, Diffusion dominated evaporation in multicomponent lattice boltzmann simulations, J. Chem. Phys.146, 054111 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Q. Xie, T. Du, C. J. Brabec, and J. Harting, Effect of particle and substrate wettability on evaporation-driven assembly of colloidal monolayers, Langmuir41, 14995 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Xie and J

    Q. Xie and J. Harting, Controllable capillary assembly of magnetic ellipsoidal janus particles into tunable rings, chains and hexagonal lattices, Adv. Mater.33, 2006390 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    A. K. Gunstensen, D. H. Rothman, S. Zaleski, and G. Zanetti, Lattice boltzmann model of immiscible fluids, Phys. Rev. A43, 4320 (1991)

    1991

  32. [32]

    Leclaire, A

    S. Leclaire, A. Parmigiani, O. Malaspinas, B. Chopard, and J. Latt, Generalized three-dimensional lattice boltzmann color-gradient method for immiscible two-phase pore-scale imbibition and drainage in porous media, Phys. Rev. E95, 033306 (2017)

    2017

  33. [33]

    J. U. Brackbill, D. B. Kothe, and C. Zemach, A continuum method for modeling surface tension, J. Comput. Phys.100, 335 (1992)

    1992

  34. [34]

    Q. Gu, J. Zhang, H. Liu, and L. Wu, Numerical study of droplet behavior passing through a constricted square channel, Phys. Fluids35, 076611 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    T. Akai, B. Bijeljic, and M. J. Blunt, Wetting boundary condition for the color-gradient lattice boltzmann method: Validation with analytical and experimental data, Adv. Water Resour.116, 56 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    G. Nath, O. Aouane, and J. Harting, Reaction-limited evaporation for the color-gradient lattice Boltzmann model, J. Chem. Phys.162, 114110 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Larsson and S

    C. Larsson and S. Kumar, Comparison of one-sided and diffusion-limited evaporation models for thin liquid droplets, J. Fluid Mech.976, A25 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Murisic and L

    N. Murisic and L. Kondic, On evaporation of sessile drops with moving contact lines, J. Fluid Mech.679, 219 (2011)

    2011

  39. [39]

    Peters and J

    T. Peters and J. Schumacher, Two-way coupling of FENE dumbbells with a turbulent shear flow, Phys. Fluids19, 065109 (2007)

    2007

  40. [40]

    Li, Y.-g

    A.-b. Li, Y.-g. Yao, and H. Xu, Stiffness and excluded volume effects on conformation and dynamics of polymers: A simulation study, Chin. J. Polym. Sci.30, 350 (2012)

    2012

  41. [41]

    Sch¨ ottner, Q

    J. Sch¨ ottner, Q. Xie, G. Nath, and J. Harting, Self-assembled filament layers in drying sessile droplets: From morphology to electrical conductivity, Langmuir42, 8592 (2026). 15

    2026

  42. [42]

    Sch¨ ottner, Q

    J. Sch¨ ottner, Q. Xie, and J. Harting, Evaporation-driven nanowire self-assembly in an elongated droplet (2026), arXiv:2607.06794

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Ahlrichs and B

    P. Ahlrichs and B. D¨ unweg, Simulation of a single polymer chain in solution by combining lattice boltzmann and molecular dynamics, J. Chem. Phys.111, 8225 (1999)

    1999

  44. [44]

    M. Sega, M. Sbragaglia, S. S. Kantorovich, and A. O. Ivanov, Mesoscale structures at complex fluid–fluid interfaces: a novel lattice boltzmann/molecular dynamics coupling, Soft Matter9, 10092 (2013)

    2013

  45. [45]

    J. H. Snoeijer and B. Andreotti, Moving contact lines: Scales, regimes, and dynamical transitions, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 45, 269 (2013)

    2013

  46. [46]

    J. C. Fern´ andez-Toledano, T. D. Blake, J. De Coninck, and M. Kanduˇ c, Hidden microscopic life of the moving contact line of a waterlike liquid, Phys. Rev. Fluids5, 104004 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    B. M. Weon and J. H. Je, Self-pinning by colloids confined at a contact line, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 028303 (2013)

    2013

  48. [48]

    G. B. Jeffery, The motion of ellipsoidal particles immersed in a viscous fluid, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A102, 161 (1922)

    1922

  49. [49]

    S. G. Advani and C. L. Tucker, The use of tensors to describe and predict fiber orientation in short fiber composites, J. Rheol.31, 751 (1987)

    1987

  50. [50]

    Folgar and C

    F. Folgar and C. L. Tucker, Orientation behavior of fibers in concentrated suspensions, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos.3, 98 (1984)

    1984

  51. [51]

    Saleh, J

    B. Saleh, J. Jiang, R. Fathi, T. Al-hababi, Q. Xu, L. Wang, D. Song, and A. Ma, 30 years of functionally graded materials: An overview of manufacturing methods, applications and future challenges, Compos. Part B Eng.201, 108376 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    M¨ uller, ˇC

    E. M¨ uller, ˇC. Draˇ sar, J. Schilz, and W. A. Kaysser, Functionally graded materials for sensor and energy applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. A362, 17 (2003)

    2003

  53. [53]

    Pragya and T

    A. Pragya and T. K. Ghosh, Soft functionally gradient materials and structures – natural and manmade: A review, Adv. Mater.35, 2300912 (2023)

    2023