Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

A Taylor swimming sheet under a finite Brinkman layer

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A finite Brinkman layer can either impede or enhance the low-Reynolds-number swimming of a Taylor sheet, depending on layer thickness, distance, permeability, and interface jump stress.

desk verdict A genuinely new geometry for Taylor sheets near finite Brinkman layers, with one solid result (viscosity-driven speed maximum) and some model-dependent jump-stress claims that need a sharper caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16125 v1 pith:7IVNTDWB submitted 2025-07-22 physics.flu-dyn cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph

Tasawar Iqbal , Catherine Penington , Christian Thomas , Lyndon Koens This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyncond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords TaylorswimmingsheetBrinkmanlayerlowReynoldsnumberporousmediajumpstressasymptoticexpansionmicroorganismpropulsionmucociliaryclearance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether a thin porous layer sitting above a low-Reynolds-number waving sheet helps or hinders the sheet's swimming. It treats the classic Taylor sheet below a finite Brinkman layer, bounded above by a second Newtonian fluid, and expands the flow in powers of the wave amplitude. The leading swimming speed is $U=\varepsilon^2 U_2+O(\varepsilon^3)$, and the sign and size of $U_2$ depend on four dimensionless parameters: the Brinkman constant $k$, the layer thickness $\delta H$, the layer position $H_1$, and the interface jump stress $\beta$. With no jump stress and equal viscosities, the layer always slows the sheet; with an effective viscosity $\mu>1$ or positive $\beta$, the sheet can instead be sped up beyond the Newtonian value, provided the layer is thin and close to the sheet and $k$ is small. This matters because filter feeders and the mucociliary escalator are exactly such swimmers beside finite porous layers.

What carries the argument

The mathematical engine is a regular perturbation expansion of the stream function $\psi=\psi_0+\varepsilon\psi_1+\varepsilon^2\psi_2+\cdots$ in the scaled wave amplitude $\varepsilon=bK$, solved separately in the lower Newtonian region ($0<y<H_1$), the Brinkman layer ($H_1<y<H_2$), and the upper Newtonian region ($y>H_2$). The Brinkman layer obeys $\nabla^4\psi^{(2)}-k\nabla^2\psi^{(2)}=0$, whose solutions mix ordinary Stokes modes with exponentials $e^{\pm y\sqrt{n^2+k}}$; matching at the two interfaces uses continuity of velocity plus a stress jump proportional to $\beta\sqrt{\mu k}$ times the tangential velocity. The closed-form solution is complicated, but the far-field swimming speed collapses to Eq. (14), $U=\varepsilon^2U_2+O(\varepsilon^3)$, with the mean velocities in the two lower regions expressed in terms of $U_2$ through explicit $\cosh(\delta H\sqrt{k})$ and $\sinh(\delta H\sqrt{k})$ factors. Asymptotic limits in $k$, $\delta H$, $\mu-1$, and $\beta$ isolate which terms cause enhancement versus dissipation.

What would settle it

Simulate or measure the swimming speed of a waving sheet beneath a finite porous layer while independently varying the layer's permeability, thickness, distance from the sheet, and effective viscosity, and check whether $U_s=-2U/\varepsilon^2$ reproduces the predicted non-monotonic peak in $\mu$ at small $k$ and small $\delta H$; observing a strictly monotonic decrease would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that the swimming-speed correction for a Taylor sheet beneath a finite Brinkman layer is $U=\varepsilon^2U_2+O(\varepsilon^3)$ with $\varepsilon=bK$, and the scaled speed $U_s=-2U/\varepsilon^2$ has three regimes. For $\beta=0$ and $\mu=1$, $U_s$ decreases monotonically with the Brinkman constant $k$, the layer thickness $\delta H$, and the distance $H_1$ from the sheet, approaching zero exponentially at large $k$ and recovering the classical $U_s=1$ when the layer vanishes. For $\mu>1$ (i.e. porosity $\zeta<1$), $U_s$ is non-monotonic: at small $k$ it rises to a maximum above the Newtonian value, then falls below it, and the region of enhancement sits at small $k$, small $\delta H$, and small $H_1$. For non-zero jump stress at the interfaces, positive $\beta$ increases $U_s$ and negative $\beta$ decreases it at small $k$, with the model diverging for $\beta>0.5$. The paper interprets the $\mu$-maximum as a balance between the speed gain a sheet experiences under a higher-viscosity outer layer and the dissipative drag of permeability.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions that a layer can enhance swimming stand or fall on the assumed formula for how momentum is transferred across the porous-fluid boundaries, and the model itself stops being trustworthy for jump-stress values above 0.5.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A finite porous layer is not merely a resistive obstacle: in the right parameter window it can make a waving sheet swim faster than it would in a pure Newtonian fluid.
  • The enhancement window is narrow, so biological structures that benefit from it would need to be tuned to thin layers close to the sheet with small Brinkman constant.
  • Positive interface jump stress enhances swimming at small permeability, while negative jump stress impedes it; the opposite holds for the mean flow beneath the layer.
  • The model reduces to the classical Taylor result when the layer vanishes, and to a wall-like limit when the permeability goes to zero, so it interpolates between two known geometries.
  • For $\beta>0.5$ the series diverges, marking a boundary beyond which the assumed interface conditions cannot be trusted.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A three-dimensional analogue, a spheroidal or flagellated swimmer beneath a finite porous layer, would probably keep the same competition between viscous-confinement enhancement and porous drag, so the non-monotonic speed maximum is likely a general feature rather than a sheet-specific artefact.
  • The enhancement window resembles the loosely packed microvilli collars of choanoflagellates but not the tightly packed, cross-linked collars of sponge choanocytes, suggesting filter-feeding architectures may be tuned to sit on either side of the maximum; this is my inference, not a claim of the paper.
  • A direct test would be to measure pumping flow, not just swimmer speed: the paper's mean-velocity formulas predict how much fluid a finite porous layer moves, which particle image velocimetry on cilia arrays beneath mucus-like layers could verify.
  • If the stress-jump rule were replaced by a microstructure-resolved interface model, the predicted maximum in $\mu$ might survive while the $\beta>0.5$ divergence shifts; interface-resolved simulations would settle this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies two-dimensional low-Reynolds-number swimming of a Taylor sheet beneath a finite Brinkman layer. The Brinkman layer is sandwiched between a lower Newtonian region containing the sheet and an upper Newtonian region extending to infinity; Ochoa-Tapia-Whitaker stress-jump conditions are imposed at both porous interfaces. The authors solve the linearized Brinkman/Stokes equations by regular expansion in wave amplitude epsilon, obtaining U = epsilon^2 U2 + O(epsilon^3). They report how the scaled speed Us = -2U/epsilon^2 depends on the scaled Brinkman constant k, layer thickness delta_H, lower boundary H1, jump stress beta, and effective viscosity mu = 1/zeta. The main results are monotonic speed reduction with k, delta_H, and H1 for beta = 0 and mu = 1; enhancement for positive beta and reduction for negative beta at small k; a non-monotonic maximum in mu for small k and thin layers; and more complex coupled beta-mu behavior. Biological implications for choanoflagellates, sponges, and mucociliary clearance are discussed.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a useful contribution by showing that a finite porous layer produces qualitatively different swimming-speed behavior from an infinite Brinkman medium or a Newtonian bubble: a maximum in the effective viscosity appears from the competition between confining-wall enhancement and Brinkman dissipation. The beta = 0 maximum is supported by the small-k, thin-layer expansion Eq. (22), and the solution reduces properly to the classical Taylor sheet, the rigid-wall limit, and the infinite-Brinkman-fluid limit. The derivation has no fitted parameters, and the asymptotic limits provide analytical checks. However, the paper's headline coupling claim involving positive jump stress is, by the authors' own statement in Sec. III.B, outside the regular domain for beta > 0.5, which overlaps the cited experimental range. The central expression U2 is never given, so much of the parameter exploration rests on unverifiable Mathematica output. These issues are fixable and do not undermine the conservative beta = 0 results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Fig. 1, Sec. II after Eq. (1b)] The permeability is defined inconsistently. The abstract and Fig. 1 caption give kappa = mu/(zeta alpha^2), while Sec. II defines kappa = mu/alpha^2 and k' = alpha^2 zeta/(mu K^2). Under the first definition k' = 1/(kappa K^2); under the second k' = zeta/(kappa K^2). The same plotted k therefore corresponds to physical permeabilities differing by a factor zeta, and the central statement that Us decreases as permeability decreases (Sec. III.A) is ambiguous. Please adopt one definition and propagate it through the scaling, abstract, and figure.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (14)] The central asymptotic result is stated only as U = epsilon^2 U2 + O(epsilon^3); no expression for U2 is provided anywhere in the manuscript. The subsequent parameter study, including the mu-maximum and the coupled beta-mu contours in Fig. 9, is presented through Mathematica-generated figures and asymptotic limits (Eqs. (17)-(22)) only. Without the explicit U2 in an appendix or the code used to generate the figures, the central quantitative claims cannot be checked or reproduced. Please supply one of these.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Sec. III.D, Abstract] The authors state in Sec. III.B that the solution 'diverges when beta > 0.5, suggesting a breakdown in the underlying assumptions and boundary conditions,' and they cite experimental calibration beta in [-1, 1.5] from Ref. [38]. Despite this, the abstract and biological discussion use positive jump stress without qualifying the range, and the abstract's claim that coupling nonzero jump stress with variable porosity produces a speed 'attaining a maximum, surpassing that found for the Newtonian case' is not tied to beta <= 0.5. In Sec. III.D and Fig. 9 the text does not identify the Us = 1 contour, so the reader cannot tell whether the enhancement above the Newtonian value occurs only for beta > 0.5. Please either restrict the enhancement claims to the regular domain beta <= 0.5, add the Us = 1 contours to Fig. 9, or justify the extrapolation. The beta = 0 maximum in Sec. III.C is independent and appears sound.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III.C] The text 'Figure 4(d) further illustrates the maximum' should refer to Fig. 6(d), since Fig. 4 has only panels (a) and (b).
  2. [Sec. I] The text attributes the Helicobacter pylori study to 'Syed and Henry [26]', but Ref. [26] is by Mirbagheri and Fu. Please correct the attribution or the reference.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (4c)] The notation 'mu^(i) c K p'^(i) = p^(i)' is confusing. If pressure is scaled by the common viscosity mu, the superscript on mu should not appear, and the relation should be written as p^(i) = mu c K p'^(i).
  4. [Sec. III.A, after Eq. (18)] The phrase 'decreases exponentially with the thickness of the Brinkman layer, delta_H, and the permeability, sqrt(k)' should read 'with the square root of the scaled Brinkman constant, sqrt(k)', since k is not the permeability.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'When ignoring the effects of jump stress and porosity' is ambiguous because porosity enters through both zeta and the effective viscosity mu = 1/zeta; consider restating this as 'for beta = 0 and zeta = 1'.
  6. [Sec. III.A] The sentence 'a finite porous layer will only recede the flow that travels through it' is unclear and should be rephrased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the swimming speed is derived from the stated governing equations and boundary conditions; the imported jump-stress model is a modeling premise, not a fitted target.

full rationale

The swimming speed U = ε²U2 + O(ε³) is obtained by substituting the general solutions (13) into the boundary conditions (9), (10), and (12) and solving the resulting linear system order by order in ε. No swimming-speed datum is used to set a parameter, and U2 is not an input to the governing equations. The only externally imported element is the Ochoa-Tapia–Whitaker stress-jump condition (2c), which the paper uses as a modeling premise and then derives its consequences; borrowing a premise is not circularity. The paper's own caveat that the solution diverges for β > 0.5, suggesting a breakdown of the underlying assumptions, is an explicit validity limitation rather than a self-referential step. The limits recovering the classical Taylor result and the wall/interface analogues are independent consistency checks. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Any concern about the empirical range of the jump-stress model is a correctness risk, not a circularity risk.

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

All dimensionless inputs (k, H1, δH, β, μ) are physical parameters of the layered system scanned across ranges; none are fitted to data. The derivation rests on the Brinkman continuum model and the cited jump-stress boundary condition.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stokes equations for Newtonian regions and Brinkman equation for the porous layer
    Eq. (1a)-(1b). Standard continuum model for low-Reynolds-number flow through a porous medium; adopted without derivation.
  • standard math Regular perturbation expansion of stream function and swimming speed in powers of ε is valid
    Eq. (11a)-(11b). Assumes the solution is analytic in the scaled wave amplitude and that truncation at O(ε²) is accurate for the presented results.
  • domain assumption Jump stress boundary condition of Ochoa-Tapia and Whitaker: stress jump equals β√(μα) times tangential velocity at each interface
    Eq. (2c). This constitutive relation is imported from the porous-media literature [25,38]; its validity is load-bearing for all β-dependent results.
  • domain assumption Effective viscosity of the Brinkman layer is μ/ζ (inverse porosity times solvent viscosity)
    Eq. (3) and μ(2)=μ/ζ. A constitutive choice for the averaged porous-medium stress.
  • domain assumption Far-field horizontal velocity U equals the swimming speed of the sheet
    Eq. (2d), (10a)-(10b). Standard in Taylor sheet problems; the swimming speed is read off the uniform flow at infinity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Taylor swimming sheet under a finite Brinkman layer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IVNTDWB

@misc{pith2026250716125,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Taylor swimming sheet under a finite Brinkman layer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IVNTDWB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16125}
}
read the original abstract

An asymptotic approach is employed to study the swimming speed of a two-dimensional Taylor swimming sheet beneath a Brinkman layer of finite thickness. This configuration is representative of a swimmer confined within a porous non-Newtonian boundary and could model microscopic filter feeders like choanoflagellates and sponges or the mucociliary escalator in the lungs. When ignoring the effects of jump stress and porosity, the swimming speed of the sheet decreases as the thickness and lower boundary of the Brinkman layer increase. The same is true as the permeability of the layer decreases. Including porosity effects with a zero jump stress enhances the swimming velocity of the sheet for porosity values near unity and decreases the swimming velocity for smaller porosity values. In the absence of porosity, the swimming speed of the sheet increases for positive-valued jump stresses and decreases for negative ones. Coupling nonzero jump stress with a variable porosity establishes complex behavior, with the sheet's swimming speed attaining a maximum, surpassing that found for the Newtonian case, particularly in thin or low-permeability Brinkman layers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16125 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Model of the Taylor swimming sheet, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Scaled swimming speed of the sheet, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a,b) The mean velocity in the first Newtonian region, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Scaled swimming speed of the sheet, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Mean velocity within the first Newtonian region, ¯u [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Scaled swimming speed of the sheet, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Contour plots of the scaled swimming speed of the shee [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a,c) Mean velocity within the first Newtonian region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Contour plots of the scaled swimming speed of the shee [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    B. S. C. Leadbeater, The Choanoflagellates: Evolution, Biology and Ecology (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    G. I. Taylor, Analysis of the swimming of microscopic org anisms, Proc. Math. Phys. Sci. 209, 447 (1951)

    work page 1951

  3. [2]

    Figure 4(d) further illustrates the maximum achieved in the scaled swimming speed, Us, at small Brinkman constants, k, and δ H = 1

    The leading terms in k are, however, strictly negative, which causes the decrease in Us as µ increases. Figure 4(d) further illustrates the maximum achieved in the scaled swimming speed, Us, at small Brinkman constants, k, and δ H = 1. As the effective viscosity, µ , increases for k ≤ 0.1, Us grows to a peak before decreasing, with a larger maximum obtain...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (9), (10), and (12), to solve for the unknown constants

    These general solutions are substituted into the boundar y conditions, given by Eqns. (9), (10), and (12), to solve for the unknown constants. Mathematica [3 9] was used to solve these equations and thereby construct the asymptotic solution for the flow dr iven by a Taylor swimming sheet beneath a Brinkman layer. Primes are dropped for convenienc e in the ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Lighthill, Flagellar hydrodynamics, SIAM 18, 161 (1976)

    J. Lighthill, Flagellar hydrodynamics, SIAM 18, 161 (1976)

    work page 1976

  6. [5]

    Brennen and H

    C. Brennen and H. Winet, Fluid mechanics of propulsion by cilia and flagella, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 9, 339 (1977)

    work page 1977

  7. [6]

    L. Fung, A. Konkol, T. Ishikawa, B. Larson, T. Brunet, and R. E. Goldstein, Swimming, feeding and inversion of multicellular choanoflagellate sheets, bioRx iv , 2023 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    M. E. Pettitt, B. A. Orme, J. R. Blake, and B. S. Leadbeater , The hydrodynamics of filter feeding in choanoflagellates, Eur. J. Protistol 38, 313 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Sauzade, G

    M. Sauzade, G. J. Elfring, and E. Lauga, Taylor’s swimmin g sheet: Analysis and improvement of the perturbation series, Physica D 240, 1567 (2011)

    2011

  2. [9]

    Gray, The mechanism of ciliary movement, Proc

    J. Gray, The mechanism of ciliary movement, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 93, 104 (1922)

    1922

  3. [10]

    Hancock, The self-propulsion of microscopic organis ms through liquids, Proc

    G. Hancock, The self-propulsion of microscopic organis ms through liquids, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 217, 96 (1953)

    1953

  4. [11]

    Blake, Infinite models for ciliary propulsion, J

    J. Blake, Infinite models for ciliary propulsion, J. Flui d Mech. 49, 209 (1971)

    1971

  5. [12]

    D. F. Katz, On the propulsion of micro-organisms near so lid boundaries, J. Fluid Mech. 64, 33 (1974)

    1974

  6. [13]

    Man and E

    Y . Man and E. Lauga, Phase-separation models for swimmi ng enhancement in complex fluids, Phys. Rev. E 92, 023004 (2015)

    2015

  7. [14]

    H. C. Fu, V . B. Shenoy, and T. R. Powers, Low-Reynolds-nu mber swimming in gels, Europhys. Lett. 91, 24002 (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    Hewitt, Mud swimming: Locomotion through a viscopla stic fluid, Science Talks 3 (2022)

    D. Hewitt, Mud swimming: Locomotion through a viscopla stic fluid, Science Talks 3 (2022). 23

    2022

  9. [16]

    Shi and T

    J. Shi and T. R. Powers, Swimming in an anisotropic fluid: how speed depends on alignment angle, Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 123102 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Choudhary, S

    P . Choudhary, S. Mandal, and S. B. Babu, Swimming of a wav ing sheet in a viscous fluid, in Macro- molecular Symposia, V ol. 376 (Wiley Online Library, 2017) p. 1700036

    2017

  11. [18]

    Dandekar and A

    R. Dandekar and A. M. Ardekani, Swimming sheet in a visco sity-stratified fluid, J. Fluid Mech. 895, R2 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    Li and A

    G. Li and A. M. Ardekani, Undulatory swimming in non-New tonian fluids, J. Fluid Mech. 784, R4 (2015)

    2015

  13. [20]

    Hewitt and N

    D. Hewitt and N. Balmforth, Taylor’s swimming sheet in a yield-stress fluid, J. Fluid Mech. 828, 33 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    Dandekar, V

    R. Dandekar, V . A. Shaik, and A. M. Ardekani, Swimming sh eet in a density-stratified fluid, J. Fluid Mech. 874, 210 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    A. M. Leshansky, Enhanced low-reynolds-number propul sion in heterogeneous viscous environments, Phys. Rev. E 80, 051911 (2009)

    2009

  16. [23]

    Nganguia and O

    H. Nganguia and O. S. Pak, Squirming motion in a brinkman medium, J. Fluid Mech. 855, 554 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    N. Ho, S. D. Olson, and K. Leiderman, Swimming speeds of fi laments in viscous fluids with resistance, Phys. Rev. E 93, 043108 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    N. Ho, K. Leiderman, and S. Olson, A three-dimensional m odel of flagellar swimming in a brinkman fluid, J. Fluid Mech. 864, 1088 (2019)

    2019

  19. [26]

    Y . Chen, N. Lordi, M. Taylor, and O. S. Pak, Helical locom otion in a porous medium, Phys. Rev. E 102, 043111 (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    J. A. Ochoa-Tapia and S. Whitaker, Momentum transfer at the boundary between a porous medium and a homogeneous fluid—I. Theoretical development, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 38, 2635 (1995)

    1995

  21. [28]

    S. A. Mirbagheri and H. C. Fu, Helicobacter pylori coupl es motility and diffusion to actively create a heterogeneous complex medium in gastric mucus, Phys. Rev. L ett. 116, 198101 (2016)

    2016

  22. [29]

    Nganguia, L

    H. Nganguia, L. Zhu, D. Palaniappan, and O. S. Pak, Squir ming in a viscous fluid enclosed by a brinkman medium, Phys. Rev. E 101, 063105 (2020)

    2020

  23. [30]

    Della-Giustina, H

    J. Della-Giustina, H. Nganguia, and E. Demir, Squirmin g with a backward-propelling cage, Phys. Fluids 35, 10.1063/5.0152711 (2023)

    2023 doi

  24. [31]

    Aymen, D

    U. Aymen, D. Palaniappan, E. Demir, and H. Nganguia, Infl uence of heterogeneity or shape on the locomotion of a caged squirmer, J. Fluid Mech. 967, A7 (2023). 24

    2023

  25. [32]

    Stannard and C

    W. Stannard and C. O’Callaghan, Ciliary function and th e role of cilia in clearance, J. Aerosol. Med. 19, 110 (2006)

    2006

  26. [33]

    M. A. Sleigh, J. R. Blake, and N. Liron, The propulsion of mucus by cilia, Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 137, 726 (1988)

    1988

  27. [34]

    Causa, D

    E. Causa, D. Das, L. Feriani, J. Kotar, and P . Cicuta, Cil ia dynamics creates a dynamic barrier to penetration of the periciliary layer in human airway epithe lia, bioRxiv 10.1101/2025.03.21.644548 (2025), https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2025/03/24/2025.03.21.644548.full.pdf

    2025 doi

  28. [35]

    L. T. Nielsen, S. S. Asadzadeh, J. Dölger, J. H. Walther, T. Kiørboe, and A. Andersen, Hydrodynamics of microbial filter feeding, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9373 (2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    Nielsen, Hydrodynamics in early animal evolution, B io

    C. Nielsen, Hydrodynamics in early animal evolution, B io. Rev. 98, 376 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    Kurzthaler and H

    C. Kurzthaler and H. A. Stone, Hydrodynamics of cell swi mming, Out-of-equilibrium Soft Matter: Active Fluids (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Tamada and H

    K. Tamada and H. Fujikawa, The steady two-dimensional fl ow of viscous fluid at low reynolds num- bers passing through an infinite row of equal parallel circul ar cylinders, Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 10, 425 (1957)

    1957

  32. [40]

    J. A. Ochoa-Tapia and S. Whitaker, Momentum transfer at the boundary between a porous medium and a homogeneous fluid—II. Comparison with experiment, Int . J. Heat Mass Transf. 38, 2647 (1995)

    1995

  33. [41]

    W. R. Inc., Mathematica, Version 13.2 (2022), champaig n, IL, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    J. L. Mah, K. K. Christensen-Dalsgaard, and S. P . Leys, C hoanoflagellate and choanocyte collar- flagellar systems and the assumption of homology., Evol. Dev . 16, 25 (2014). 25

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.