Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Modeling of Ex-Situ Dissolution for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in Aquifers

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Liquid CO2 carried by brine in a turbulent pipeline undergoes breakup, coalescence, and dissolution; this paper models all three in a population-balance framework and shows the computed droplet sizes match experimental data, making…

desk verdict A well-intentioned population-balance model for ex-situ CO2 dissolution, but the mass-transfer closure makes breakup irrelevant to total dissolution and the validation is a two-parameter fit. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06155 v2 pith:BNUO2E4M submitted 2019-08-16 physics.flu-dyn

Federico Cao , Dmitry Eskin , Yuri Leonenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords ex-situdissolutionCO2sequestrationpopulationbalanceequationdropletbreakupcoalescenceturbulentpipeflowmasstransferSauterdiameter
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

Liquid CO2 injected into a saline aquifer is buoyant, so leakage along cap-rock weaknesses is a standing risk. This paper develops a mathematical model of dissolving the CO2 before injection, in a surface pipeline where CO2 droplets are carried by turbulent brine, and claims the model captures the three processes that set droplet size—breakup, coalescence, and dissolution—well enough to reproduce measured droplet-size evolution along the pipe. A sympathetic reader would care because if the model holds, engineers can size the brine flow rate and pipe length to dissolve nearly all the CO2 before it goes underground, removing the mobile free-phase CO2 that causes leakage risk. The model tracks the full droplet size distribution across the pipe radius rather than a single mean diameter, and the paper argues this makes it a first-principles engineering tool rather than a rough estimate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the steady-state advection–diffusion population balance equation for the number concentration of droplets in each size class, discretized by the fixed-pivot method (a volume-conserving scheme that reallocates droplet volumes to fixed size classes). Breakup enters through a binary-breakup rate based on the Weber number with a critical value of 0.5; coalescence through a standard collision-frequency/coalescence-efficiency kernel; and dissolution through a convective mass-transfer rate set by the Sherwood-number correlation the paper adopts. The flow field is a two-region universal velocity profile, the droplet turbulent diffusivity follows an empirical eddy-diffusivity distribution across the pipe radius, and the turbulence energy dissipation rate is computed analytically from the pressure gradient. These closures let the equation evolve a polydisperse droplet population under realistically non-uniform turbulence, with the output collapsed to the Sauter diameter for comparison with data.

What would settle it

Measure the dissolution rate of individual liquid CO2 droplets in turbulent brine pipe flow at aquifer pressure and temperature (e.g., 70 bar, 25 °C) and compare the inferred Sherwood numbers with the correlation used in the model (Eq. 30). If the measured values differ systematically beyond experimental uncertainty, the dissolution rate is wrong regardless of how well breakup and coalescence are represented.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery the paper argues for is that a single advection–diffusion population balance equation, with breakup and coalescence closures taken from earlier droplet dispersion work and a newly derived dissolution term, gives quantitatively correct Sauter diameters—the surface-area-weighted mean droplet size—for liquid CO2 droplets in brine along a turbulent pipeline. After tuning two free parameters, the breakup-rate prefactor and the coalescence-efficiency constant, to one experimental dataset at 70 bar and 25 °C with a 5% CO2 volume fraction, the computed Sauter diameters match the measured evolution along the pipe, with a tighter fit in the downstream half where the size distribution narrows. The paper further shows that a dissolution-only model without breakup and coalescence does not approach steady state on pipeline scales, which is why the full population balance matters. On this basis the paper claims the code can be used to design and optimize ex-situ dissolution systems.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Sherwood-number correlation the paper adopts, originally measured for gas bubbles in cocurrent water pipe flow, gives the correct mass-transfer coefficient for liquid CO2 droplets dissolving in brine; if that transfer does not hold, the predicted droplet sizes and dissolved CO2 concentrations are wrong even if breakup and coalescence are modeled perfectly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, near-complete ex-situ dissolution becomes a design variable: for a fixed CO2 feed rate, engineers can choose brine flow velocity and pipe length so that droplet sizes shrink to very small values and dissolved CO2 approaches saturation before injection.
  • Higher brine flow velocities accelerate dissolution through two mechanisms—a larger droplet-to-fluid mass-transfer coefficient and smaller breakup-limited droplets—so the model can identify the minimum flow rate that still meets a dissolution target.
  • Higher initial CO2 droplet concentrations slow dissolution because the dissolved CO2 concentration approaches saturation faster, quantifying a direct trade-off between CO2 throughput and required pipeline length.
  • The full population-balance approach replaces earlier mean-diameter estimates; it shows that ignoring breakup and coalescence leaves droplet sizes far from the steady state reached in real pipelines, so designs based on dissolution alone would be misleading.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Sherwood correlation transfer from gas bubbles to liquid CO2 droplets is an extrapolation; targeted single-droplet dissolution measurements would either support or overturn the model's mass-transfer rate.
  • The two fitted parameters were tuned to one experimental dataset, so predictions at other salinities, temperatures, pressures, or pipe scales are extrapolations until those constants are measured independently for CO2–brine systems.
  • The no-stratification assumption is checked for one operating point; in larger-diameter pipes or at lower velocities, gravity settling could break the model's radial uniformity assumption.
  • The design loop could be automated: coupling the solver with an optimizer would map the Pareto frontier of pipe length versus brine flow rate for a target dissolution fraction.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a steady-state advection-diffusion population balance model for CO2 droplet breakup, coalescence, and dissolution in a turbulent brine pipeline, intended for ex-situ carbon sequestration. The model is solved numerically with a fixed-pivot discretization and compared with Sauter-diameter measurements from Zendehboudi et al. (2013) by tuning two parameters, K in the breakup rate and C2 in the coalescence efficiency. The authors claim that the model is validated against available experimental data and can be used for design and optimization of ex-situ dissolution pipelines.

Significance. If the model were sound and properly validated, it would provide a useful engineering tool for designing ex-situ CO2 dissolution pipelines. The paper's numerical framework is standard, and the appendix derivation of the dissolution source term is a useful pedagogical contribution. However, two load-bearing problems prevent acceptance: the chosen mass-transfer correlation makes the total dissolution rate independent of droplet size, contradicting the paper's central claim that breakup accelerates dissolution; and the comparison with experiment is a fit of two free parameters to the same dataset, not a validation. These issues undermine the paper's main conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Dissolution term, Eqs. (28)-(30)] Combining Eqs. (29) and (30) gives k = 0.34 (d_p Re^0.94 Sc^0.5 D_CO2)/D^2, so k is proportional to droplet diameter d_p. Substituting this into Eq. (28) yields (dx_i/dt)_diss proportional to x_i, meaning the fractional dissolution rate is identical for every size class and the total dissolution rate is proportional only to the dispersed-phase volume fraction. Consequently, the breakup and coalescence terms in Eq. (13) have no effect on the total amount of CO2 dissolved, contradicting the claim in the text following Fig. 3 that smaller droplets dissolve faster because of larger specific surface area. For the conditions cited in the paper (D=0.15 m, Re~5e5, Sc~530), a 150 micrometer droplet gives Sh~1.8 and a 100 micrometer droplet gives Sh~0.8, both at or below the stagnant-sphere limit Sh=2, further indicating that the correlation is not appropriate in this regime. The paper's central claim of breakup-accelerated dissolution is therefore not supported by its own equations.
  2. [Results and discussion, Fig. 2] The agreement shown in Fig. 2 is obtained by tuning K in Eq. (16) and C2 in Eq. (26) to the same experimental dataset (K=0.1, C2=10^13). This is a curve fit, not a validation. The abstract's statement that the model is 'validated against available experimental data' and the later claim of 'significantly higher predictive capability' are therefore overstated. No independent test, holdout dataset, or uncertainty quantification is provided. At minimum, the paper should reframe the comparison as a calibration exercise and discuss the predictive limitations that follow from having two free parameters tuned to the single available dataset.
  3. [Dissolution term, Eq. (30)] The Kress and Keyes (1973) correlation was developed for gas bubbles in cocurrent water pipe flow. The authors do not justify its application to liquid CO2 droplets in brine. Since this correlation directly sets the mass-transfer coefficient and thus controls the entire dissolution dynamics, the transfer requires either independent experimental support or a sensitivity analysis over plausible alternative correlations. Without such support, the quantitative predictions in Figs. 4-7 are not reliable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (30)] The symbol D is used for the pipe diameter in the geometric ratio (d_p/D)^2 and for the molecular diffusivity in the Schmidt number Sc = nu_f/D; this notation conflict should be resolved by using D_pipe and D_CO2.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The name 'Blausius' should be spelled 'Blasius'.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusion] The wording 'validated against available experimental data' is inconsistent with the body's statement that 'the computed Sauter diameter distributions were matched to the measured data by tuning the parameters'; the manuscript should be reworded to distinguish calibration from validation.
  4. [Results and discussion] The sentence 'the code presented here makes the optimization a rather straightforwardly handled task' implies that the code is available, but no code is provided; the authors should clarify the availability of the MATLAB implementation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Validation of droplet-size predictions is an in-sample fit: K and C2 are tuned to the same Zendehboudi et al. data that are then shown as agreement.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results and discussion, after Eq. (31), Fig. 2; Conclusion]
    "The computed Sauter diameter distributions along a pipe for different mean flow velocities at the initial mean droplet concentration φ0 = 0.05 were matched to the measured data by tuning the parameters K in Eq. (16) describing droplet breakup rate and C2 in Eq. (26) defining the coalescence probability. ... The best fitting was obtained at K = 0.1 and C2 = 10^13. One can see that the computational results correlate well with the measured data in Fig. 2."

    The dataset used for validation (Zendehboudi et al., 2013) is the same dataset to which the model parameters K and C2 are fitted. K controls the breakup rate in Eq. (16) and C2 controls coalescence efficiency in Eq. (26); both directly set the evolution of the droplet size distribution and hence the Sauter diameter shown in Fig. 2. Matching the measured Sauter-diameter curves after tuning these two parameters is therefore a curve fit, not an independent prediction. The paper's conclusion that the model 'has been validated against the experimental data' and has 'significantly higher predictive capability' is unsupported by this in-sample agreement; no out-of-sample test is carried out.

full rationale

The advection-diffusion population-balance equation, the dissolution term derived in the Appendix, and the external closures (Johansen eddy diffusivity, Kress-Keyes Sherwood correlation, Coulaloglou-Tavlarides coalescence kernel) are independent inputs; using them is not circular. The breakup closure from Eskin et al. (2017a,b) is self-citational, but We_cr = 0.5 came from Couette experiments and is not the target result of this paper, so it does not by itself create circularity. The one clear circular step is the validation procedure: K and C2 are tuned to Zendehboudi et al.'s measured Sauter-diameter profiles, and the same profiles are then exhibited as agreement. This is a fitted input called a prediction. Whether the Kress-Keyes gas-liquid correlation transfers to liquid CO2 drops is a legitimate correctness/external-validity question, not a circularity question. Overall score 6: the central model structure contains independent content, but the headline validation claim reduces to an in-sample fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard population-balance framework augmented with several empirical closures imported from gas-liquid and Couette-flow studies. Two parameters (K, C2) are fitted to the same dataset used for validation, so a significant part of the quantitative agreement is purchased rather than derived. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • K (breakup rate coefficient, Eq. 16) = 0.1
    Tuned to match the Zendehboudi et al. (2013) Sauter diameter data. Prior estimate K=1 from Couette experiments was not reliably identified.
  • C2 (coalescence efficiency constant, Eq. 26) = 1e13 (dimensional)
    Tuned to the same validation dataset; depends on brine-CO2 chemistry and is dimensional; value far from air-water values reported by Laakkonen et al.
  • C1 (coalescence frequency constant, Eq. 25) = 1.0
    Set by hand close to the literature value 0.88 from Laakkonen et al. (2006); not fitted here.
  • We_cr (critical Weber number, Eq. 16) = 0.5
    Taken from Eskin et al. (2017b) Couette device experiments; sets the steady-state droplet size; imported into pipe flow without re-validation.
  • Cs salinity factor (saturation concentration in brine relative to pure water) = 0.85
    Assumed from Zendehboudi et al. (2013) for salinities 0.5-1.4 mol/kg over 20-100 C and 0-80 bar; not independently validated here.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Gravity-induced droplet stratification is negligible across the pipe cross-section.
    Assumption 1 in the Modeling section; justified by a 20% concentration variation estimate, but this estimate is itself model-based.
  • domain assumption The flow is steady-state with a constant flow rate.
    Assumption 2 in the Modeling section; excludes transients and time-varying injection conditions.
  • domain assumption Droplet turbulent diffusivity equals the fluid eddy diffusivity (Eq. 9).
    Assumes droplets are small and density difference is small; neglects inertial effects on droplet dispersion.
  • domain assumption The Prandtl logarithmic velocity profile and Johansen eddy diffusivity correlations (Eqs. 6-7, 10-12) describe the pipe turbulence.
    Standard engineering approximations for fully developed turbulent pipe flow; assumed valid for the brine-CO2 system.
  • domain assumption The Eskin et al. breakup model with beta(fbv)=12 fbv (1-fbv) describes binary droplet breakup in turbulent pipe flow.
    Breakup rate and daughter-size distribution are imported from a Taylor-Couette device study and assumed transferable to pipe geometry and CO2-brine.
  • domain assumption The Coulaloglou-Tavlarides coalescence kernel with C1=1 and tuned C2 describes droplet coalescence in this liquid-liquid system.
    The authors note coalescence models differ widely; they select this kernel and tune C2 to fit the data.
  • domain assumption The Kress and Keyes (1973) Sherwood correlation (Eq. 30) gives the mass-transfer coefficient for CO2 droplets in brine.
    The correlation was developed for gas bubbles in water pipe flow; applying it to liquid CO2 droplets is the weakest premise identified.
  • domain assumption Henry's law with Cs = 0.85 Cs(pure water) gives CO2 saturation concentration in brine.
    Salinity correction factor taken from Zendehboudi et al. (2013); range of validity stated but not verified here.
  • standard math The Kumar and Ramkrishna fixed-pivot discretization (1996) accurately solves the population balance equation.
    A well-established numerical method; the paper checks grid independence informally.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling of Ex-Situ Dissolution for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in Aquifers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BNUO2E4M

@misc{pith2026190806155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling of Ex-Situ Dissolution for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in Aquifers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BNUO2E4M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06155}
}
abstract

Underground carbon dioxide ($CO_2$) sequestration is considered to be one of the main methods to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In this technology, pure $CO_2$ is injected into an underground geological formation and since it is less dense than residual fluids, there is always a risk of leakage to the surface. To increase security of underground $CO_2$ disposal, ex-situ dissolution can be implemented. When $CO_2$ is dissolved in brine before injection, it significantly reduces the risks of leakage. In this approach, pure $CO_2$ is dissolved on the surface before injection. Surface dissolution could be achieved in a pipeline operating under the pressure of a target aquifer into which the $CO_2$ is injected. In a pipeline, $CO_2$ droplets are dissolved being dispersed in a brine turbulent flow. In this paper, a comprehensive model of droplet dissolution along a pipeline is presented. The model accounts for droplet breakup and coalescence processes and is validated against available experimental data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06155 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A representation of ex-situ dissolution. Captured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of computed droplet Sauter diameters along a pipe at different flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of droplet sizes along a pipe at different flow velocities accounting only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of droplet volume fractions along a pipe with different initial droplet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of droplet sizes along a pipe for different initial droplet volume concen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of dissolved CO2 concentration by mass (kg) with different flow velocities at the fixed initial water content φ0 = 0.05. capable of running relatively quickly on a regular laptop. Therefore, it is possible to for￾mulate a simple approach, which will allow usi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of droplet sizes along a pipe for different flow velocities with correspond [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A.; Marland, G.; Andres, R

    Boden, T. A.; Marland, G.; Andres, R. J. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO _2 Emissions; Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy: Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A., 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2005

    Metz, B.; Davidson, O.; de Coninck, H.; Loos, M.; Meyer, L. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Herzog, H. J. What future for carbon capture and sequestration? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35 (7), 148A--153A

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Jenkins, C. R. et al. Safe storage and effective monitoring of CO _2 in depleted gas fields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109 (2), E35--E41

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    CO _2 Storage in Deep Unminable Coal Seams

    Shi, J.-Q.; Durucan, S. CO _2 Storage in Deep Unminable Coal Seams. Oil & Gas Science and Technology -- Rev. IFP 2005, 60 (3), 547--558

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    A.; Bachu, S.; Nordbotten, J

    Celia, M. A.; Bachu, S.; Nordbotten, J. M.; Bandilla, K. W. Status of CO _2 storage in deep saline aquifers with emphasis on modeling approaches and practical simulations. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 6846--6892

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    M.; Joos, F

    Haugan, P. M.; Joos, F. Metrics to assess the mitigation of global warming by carbon capture and storage in the ocean and in geological reservoirs. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2004, 31, L18202

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    International Energy Agency (IEA) , CO _2 Capture and Storage; IEA Publications, 2008

    work page 2008

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    van der Meer, L. G. H. The Conditions Limiting CO _2 Storage in aquifers. Energy Convers. Manage. 1993, 34, 959--966

    1993

  2. [10]

    Escape of CO _2 from aquifers

    Lindeberg, E. Escape of CO _2 from aquifers. Energy Convers. Manage. 1997, 38, S235--S240

    1997

  3. [11]

    P.; Ennis-King, J

    Emami-Meybodi, H.; Hassanzadeh, H.; Green, C. P.; Ennis-King, J. Convective dissolution of CO_2 in saline aquifers: Progress in modeling and experiments. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 2015, 40, 238--266

    2015

  4. [12]

    Hassanzadeh, H.; Pooladi-Darvish, M.; Keith, D. W. Accelerating CO_2 dissolution in saline aquifers for geological storage - Mechanistic and sensitivity studies. Energy & Fuels 2009, 23(6), 3328--3336

    2009

  5. [13]

    W.; Hassanzadeh, H.; Pooladi-Darvish, M

    Keith, D. W.; Hassanzadeh, H.; Pooladi-Darvish, M. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 7th ed.; Elsevier Science Ltd: Oxford, 2005; pp 2163 -- 2167

    2005

  6. [14]

    Modeling of CO_2 dissolution by static mixers using back flow mixing approach with application to geological storage

    Zirrahi, M.; Hassanzadeh, H.; Abedi, J. Modeling of CO_2 dissolution by static mixers using back flow mixing approach with application to geological storage. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2013a, 104, 10--16

  7. [15]

    The laboratory testing and scale-up of a downhole device for CO_2 dissolution acceleration

    Zirrahi, M.; Hassanzadeh, H.; Abedi, J. The laboratory testing and scale-up of a downhole device for CO_2 dissolution acceleration. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 2013b, 16, 41--49

  8. [16]

    J.; Abedi, J.; Hassanzadeh, H.; Chen, Z

    Shafaei, M. J.; Abedi, J.; Hassanzadeh, H.; Chen, Z. Reverse gas-lift technology for CO_2 storage into deep saline aquifers. Energy 2012, 45(1), 840--849

    2012

  9. [17]

    Leonenko, Y.; Keith, D. W. Reservoir engineering to accelerate the dissolution of CO _2 stored in aquifers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42 (8), 2742--2747

    2008

  10. [18]

    Ex Situ Dissolution of CO _2 : A New Engineering Methodology Based on Mass-Transfer Perspective for Enhancement of CO _2 Sequestration

    Zendehboudi, S.; Khan, A.; Carlisle, S.; Leonenko, Y. Ex Situ Dissolution of CO _2 : A New Engineering Methodology Based on Mass-Transfer Perspective for Enhancement of CO _2 Sequestration. Energy & Fuels 2011, 25, 3323--3333

    2011

  11. [19]

    Ex-situ Dissolution of CO _2 for Carbon Sequestration

    Cholewinski, A.; Leonenko, Y. Ex-situ Dissolution of CO _2 for Carbon Sequestration. Energy Procedia 2013, 37, 5427--5434

    2013

  12. [20]

    Droplets evolution during ex situ dissolution technique for geological CO _2 sequestration: Experimental and mathematical modelling

    Zendehboudi, S.; Shafiei, A.; Bahadori, A.; Leonenko, Y.; Chatzis, I. Droplets evolution during ex situ dissolution technique for geological CO _2 sequestration: Experimental and mathematical modelling. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 2013, 13, 201--214

    2013

  13. [21]

    Levich, V. G. Physicochemical Hydrodynamics; Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1962

    1962

  14. [22]

    A Simple Model of Particle Diffusivity in Horizontal Hydrotransport Pipelines

    Eskin, D. A Simple Model of Particle Diffusivity in Horizontal Hydrotransport Pipelines. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2012, 82, 84--94

    2012

  15. [23]

    M.; Abdallah, W

    Eskin, D.; Taylor, S.; Ma, S. M.; Abdallah, W. Modeling droplet dispersion in a vertical turbulent tubing flow. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2017a, 173, 12--20

  16. [24]

    Boundary-Layer Theory; Springer, Berlin, 2000

    Schlichting, H.; Gersten, K. Boundary-Layer Theory; Springer, Berlin, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Johansen, S. T. The deposition of particles on vertical walls. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 1991, 17, 355–--376

    1991

  18. [26]

    On the solution of population balance equations by discretization-I

    Kumar, S.; Ramkrishna, D. On the solution of population balance equations by discretization-I. A fixed pivot technique. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1996, 51, 1311--1332

    1996

  19. [27]

    Modeling of droplet dispersion in a turbulent Taylor-Couette flow

    Eskin, D.; Taylor, S.; Dingzheng, Y. Modeling of droplet dispersion in a turbulent Taylor-Couette flow. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2017b, 161, 36--47

  20. [28]

    R.; Stuart, W

    Bird, B. R.; Stuart, W. E.; Lightfoot, E. N. Transport Phenomena; John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York/Toronto, 2002

    2002

  21. [29]

    A literature review on mechanisms and models for the coalescence process of fluid particles

    Liao, Y.; Lucas, D. A literature review on mechanisms and models for the coalescence process of fluid particles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2010, 65, 2851--2864

    2010

  22. [30]

    Description of interaction processes in agitated liquid–liquid dispersions

    Coulaloglou, C.; Tavlarides, L. Description of interaction processes in agitated liquid–liquid dispersions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1977, 32, 1289--1297

    1977

  23. [31]

    Validation of bubble breakage, coalescence and mass transfer models for gas–liquid dispersion in agitated vessel

    Laakkonen, M.; Alopaeus, V.; Aittamaa, J. Validation of bubble breakage, coalescence and mass transfer models for gas–liquid dispersion in agitated vessel. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 218--228

    2006

  24. [32]

    G ]_ =x_.ʦ ?H

    Kress, T. S.; Keyes, J. J. Liquid phase controlled mass transfer to bubbles in cocurrent turbulent pipeline flow. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1973, 28, 1809--1823 mcitethebibliography achemso-demo.bib0000664000000000000000000002326113577365770012625 0ustar rootroot@TECHREPORT USEnergy, ad...

    1973

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.