Skin formation in evaporating colloidal droplets

Alvaro Marin; Christian Diddens; Lorenzo Botto; Raphael Saiseau

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Skin formation in evaporating colloidal droplets

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives an implicit analytical solution for particle concentration profiles in diffusion-limited evaporating colloidal droplets, giving shell thickness and a Péclet threshold for skin formation.

desk verdict New high-Pe analytical solutions and a real Brownian-dynamics benchmark, but the central reduction to Eq. (9) is an assumed boundary-layer model, not the derived limit of Eq. (4), so the 'complete solution' claim needs qualification. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05196 v1 pith:S4QCPGP4 submitted 2025-01-09 physics.flu-dyn

Raphael Saiseau , Lorenzo Botto , Christian Diddens , Alvaro Marin This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.flu-dyn

keywords evaporatingcolloidaldropletsskinformationparticleshellquasi-staticmovingframePécletnumberpackingfractionBrowniandynamicsvalidationsupraparticlebuckling

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 claims that skin formation in a diffusion-limited evaporating spherical colloidal droplet can be predicted analytically, without solving the full time-dependent diffusion equation numerically. The method is to switch to a moving reference frame that follows the receding interface; in that frame the particle concentration becomes quasi-static, and the nonlinear transport equation separates into an implicit algebraic solution for any rational equation of state and mobility factor. The solution gives the particle concentration profile, the position and thickness of the particle shell, and a Péclet-number threshold for shell formation that depends on the initial packing fraction. If the claims hold, one can compute when a glassy layer appears and a proxy for how much the final supraparticle deforms, quantities that are currently obtained mainly from simulation or experiment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quasi-static moving-frame ansatz: a frame moving with radial velocity $u=U(t)(R/r)^{n-1}$ in which the particle concentration field is time-independent ($\partial\phi/\partial t=0$). In that frame the particle continuity equation reduces to an ordinary differential equation whose right-hand side contains the rational compressibility $Z(\phi)$ and mobility $f(\phi)$, and whose integral gives the implicit front solutions (Eqs. 11, 13, 16, A3-A5). The front has an intrinsic length scale $\xi=(\phi_m/(\phi_m-\phi_0))^\alpha D_0/|\dot R|$, so the Péclet number $Pe=R|\dot R|/D_0$ controls whether the shell is visible; the shell thickness is then set by volume conservation through a bulk-shell formula, corrected by a fitted term that accounts for the finite time needed to build the condensed layer.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to solve the full time-dependent transport equation (4) for $Pe$ between 1 and 20, with $\alpha=1$ and no hydrodynamic interactions, and compare the front position $r(\psi_{\rm fr})$ and concentration profile with the implicit solution (11); the paper's Appendix B indicates the quasi-static regime is only approached for $Pe>20\alpha$, so failure to converge toward (11) at lower $Pe$ would show the ansatz is only asymptotic. A more discriminating experimental test would measure shell thickness as a function of initial packing fraction at fixed Péclet number: the model predicts a non-monotonic threshold with a minimum near the glassy packing fraction, so a measured monotonic increase of the threshold with $\phi_0$ would falsify the central prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for high Péclet numbers, the nonlinear particle-transport problem in a shrinking spherical domain has an implicit analytical solution. Starting from a moving-frame ansatz with relative velocity $u=U(t)(R/r)^{n-1}$ and $\partial\phi/\partial t=0$, the paper derives a closed constitutive equation (Eq. 9) and integrates it for compressibility $Z(\phi)=(\phi_m/(\phi_m-\phi))^\alpha$ for any $\alpha$ (Eqs. A3-A5, 11, 13) and for hard-sphere suspensions with a hindered-mobility factor $(1-\phi)^6$ (Eq. 16). The solution describes a sharp front whose intrinsic length is $\xi\sim D_0/|\dot R|$, so the shell becomes observable when $R/\xi>1$; it also yields the shell-front position and thickness, a bulk-shell thickness formula (Eq. 12), a corrected shell-thickness expression with one fitted constant (Eq. 18), and a Péclet threshold $Pe>12\phi_m(1-\phi_0)^6/(\phi_m-\phi_0)$ for shell formation. The paper validates the profile and front position against finite-element solutions of the full equation for $Pe>2\alpha\times 10$ and against two-dimensional Brownian dynamics, and uses the analytical profile to locate the glassy layer and to estimate the maximum deformation of the final cluster.

Load-bearing premise

The decisive assumption is that there exists a co-moving frame in which the particle concentration field stops changing with time and the relative velocity has the prescribed power-law form $u=U(t)(R/r)^{n-1}$; the paper's own Appendix B shows this is only asymptotic, with the quasi-static regime appearing for $Pe>2\alpha\times 10$ and the uncorrected shell-thickness formula underestimating the numerical shell thickness by a factor of 2 to 4 before a fitted correction is applied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a given evaporation rate, the model predicts that shell formation can be delayed or advanced by varying the initial packing fraction, with the Péclet threshold for shell formation having a minimum near the hard-sphere glassy packing fraction.
Concentration profiles from the model locate the glassy layer $r(\phi_g)$; this position and the normalized maximum droplet retraction $[R(\phi_g)-R_{\min}]/R(\phi_g)$ are proposed as predictors of supraparticle deformation and maximum cluster aspect ratio.
In the hard-sphere case with hydrodynamic interactions, the shell grows with a flat condensed-phase profile, and Eq. (18) with the fitted constant $x$ gives shell thickness in near-agreement with numerical solutions, making the analytical model effectively closed.
In the high-Péclet limit, the shell front profile becomes steeper over time, sharper than the initial concentration profile; the paper states that this sharpening is a generic feature independent of the equation of state while quasi-static conditions hold.
For initial packing fractions close to the glassy transition, the effect of Péclet number on the glassy layer position is negligible, whereas for low initial packing the model predicts a clear delayed shell formation.

Reading between the lines

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

If the moving-frame ansatz is as general as the paper suggests, the same implicit-solution strategy should apply to other 1D nonlinear diffusion problems with rational equation of state and mobility, such as drying films or shrinking cylindrical channels where the velocity field is not exactly $u=U(t)(R/r)^{n-1}$; the paper does not work these examples out.
The fitted correction $x=0.21[(\phi_m-\phi_0)/\phi_m]^3$ absorbs the finite shell-building time; a first-principles derivation of that time from the quasi-static profile would remove the one empirical constant and make the model fully closed.
Using $[R(\phi_g)-R_{\min}]/R(\phi_g)$ as a proxy for the final cluster aspect ratio is an extrapolation beyond the paper's direct results; 3D imaging of drying levitated or sessile droplets could test whether this proxy tracks observed supraparticle shapes better than shell thickness alone.
Because the Péclet number is time-independent under the d-squared-law, the shell-formation threshold translates into a critical evaporation rate; experiments that vary evaporation rate at fixed initial packing could test the predicted non-monotonic dependence without changing colloid chemistry.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline: this paper has a real new result buried under an overclaimed derivation. The implicit analytical solutions for the concentration profile in a shrinking droplet—Eqs. (11), (13), (16), (A3–A5)—are new and look correct in the high-Pe regime. The Brownian dynamics comparison in Fig. 6 is a genuine external benchmark and it lands. But the reduction from the full PDE (Eq. 4) to the central ODE (Eq. 9) is not what the text says. The authors say 'equation (4) then reduces to' but they never show the steps, and the justification via ∇(uφ)=0 is only valid for uniform φ. For the nonuniform profiles the solution produces, a divergence-free u doesn't make ∇·(uφ) vanish. The factor (φ−φ0) in Eq. (9) is the tell: this is a sharp-front, excess-concentration model in which the bulk is pinned at φ0. That is a plausible and sensible high-Pe boundary-layer approximation, but it is not the exact quasi-static limit of the stated problem. A genuine quasi-static reduction with no-flux at r=0 gives −D0 d(φZ)/dr = φu, not Eq. (9).

The paper is not shy about the limits: Appendix B admits that the quasi-static regime is only reached for Pe > 2α×10 and that Eq. (12) underestimates the simulated shell thickness by a factor of 2–4 until the fitted x in Eq. (18) is added. This means the 'first complete analytical solution' claim in the conclusion is too strong. Qualified as an asymptotic high-Pe framework, it would be fine.

What I like: the method is elegant, the comparison to Brownian dynamics is honest, and the result on the Pe threshold depending on φ0 is worth having. The aspect-ratio prediction is a proxy, not a validated prediction; I would not lean on it.

Bottom line: send it to peer review, but the authors need to rewrite Section II.1 to state Eq. (9) as an ansatz, and tone down the claim. If they do that, it's a solid contribution. As it stands, a careful reader will trip over the derivation the same way I did.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an analytical framework for the time-dependent particle concentration profile in a diffusion-limited evaporating spherical colloidal droplet, focusing on the high-Peclet, quasi-static regime. By positing a moving reference frame in which the problem is steady, the authors reduce the nonlinear diffusion equation to a first-order ODE and obtain implicit analytical solutions for rational equations of state and mobility terms, including a hard-sphere case with hydrodynamic interactions. The solutions are compared to finite-element simulations of the full PDE and to 2D Brownian dynamics simulations, and are used to predict the glassy-layer position, a Peclet threshold for shell formation, and a maximum cluster aspect ratio proxy. The central claim, stated in the conclusion, is that this is 'the first complete solution for this problem analytically tractable'.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the work would be a useful contribution to the colloidal-droplet evaporation literature. The implicit-profile construction is nontrivial, and the comparison to Brownian dynamics provides external grounding that goes beyond fitting to the same continuum PDE. The prediction of a nonmonotonic Peclet threshold as a function of initial packing fraction is a specific, falsifiable output. However, the derivation of the moving-frame equation is incomplete, the quasi-static regime is shown by the authors themselves to be only asymptotically valid, and the shell-thickness correction relies on a fitted constant. These issues currently limit the paper to a promising asymptotic framework rather than the 'complete solution' claimed.

major comments (4)

[II.1, Eq. (9)] The reduction of the nonlinear diffusion equation (4) to the first-order ODE (9) is asserted rather than derived. The text justifies Eq. (8) by arguing that for a homogeneous distribution ∇(uφ)=0 implies ∇u=0, but this argument does not apply to the nonuniform concentration profiles that Eq. (11) produces. Furthermore, for n>1 the coordinate transformation r'=r−∫u dt with u=U(t)(R/r)^{n−1} does not yield ∇r'=∇; only the Jacobian determinant is unity, so the quasi-static form does not follow from the stated transformation. The appearance of the factor (φ−φ0) in Eq. (9) suggests an excess-concentration boundary-layer construction rather than a direct transformation of Eq. (4). The authors should either provide a matched-asymptotics derivation from Eq. (4) in the Pe≫1 limit, or explicitly label the result as an asymptotic boundary-layer model. As written, the implicit solutions (11), (16), and (A3)–(A5) are solutions of a different equation, not complete solutions of the stated problem.
[II.1, boundary conditions] The boundary conditions φ(0)=φ0 and φ(R)=φm are imposed ad hoc. The no-flux condition at r=0, Eq. (6), imposes ∂_rΠ=0, not a fixed value φ(0)=φ0. The condition at the interface is justified by saturation only in the Pe≫1 limit, which is precisely the regime where the quasi-static ansatz is asymptotic. The authors should clarify the status of these boundary conditions as part of the asymptotic construction and state their expected error order.
[Appendix B] Appendix B concedes that the quasi-static regime is reached only for Pe>2α×10 and that Eq. (12) underestimates the simulated shell thickness by a factor 2–4. This directly contradicts the conclusion's claim of a 'first complete solution for this problem analytically tractable'. The model should be presented as a high-Peclet, late-time asymptotic approximation, not a complete solution. The abstract and conclusion should be revised accordingly.
[Eq. (18) and Fig. 9] The shell-thickness correction in Eq. (18) introduces x=0.21((φ_m−φ_0)/φ_m)^3, fitted to the authors' own finite-element solutions. Because the same finite-element data are used to validate the model in Fig. 13 and elsewhere, the quantitative agreement is not an independent test. To make the predictive claim credible, the authors should either derive x from the intrinsic length scale ξ=1/Pe′ or provide a cross-validation on independent data (e.g., the Brownian dynamics front positions).

minor comments (6)

[Section II] There is a typo in the sentence 'there not flow is induced' which should read 'there is no flow induced'.
[Section II and elsewhere] Several repeated words and misspellings appear, including 'particles particles', 'packing packing', and 'negligeable'; these should be corrected.
[Equations (11) and (13)] The symbol Pe' is used with different scalings in Eq. (11) and Eq. (13); the definition should be restated or the notation changed to avoid ambiguity.
[Appendix B] The phrase 'the necessary condition to observe a quasi-static profile is only that Pe ≪ 1' is presumably a typo for Pe ≫ 1, as written it contradicts the surrounding discussion.
[Abstract] The abstract states 'This approach is compared successfully' without specifying the high-Peclet limit; this should be qualified to avoid over-generalization.
[Figure 9 caption] The axis label contains an unclear power; the typesetting should be corrected so that the exponent is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Analytical concentration profiles are genuinely derived, but the shell-thickness correction x=0.21((phi_m-phi_0)/phi_m)^3 is explicitly fitted to the authors' own finite-element solutions and then drives the glassy-layer position and deformation predictions, making those final predictions partially circular.

fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (18), Fig. 9; downstream predictions in Figs. 10-11 and Conclusion.]
"where x = 0.21 (phi_m - phi_0 / phi_m)^3 is fitted on the full numerical solutions (see Figure 9). ... Using this correction on the front position, this closes the analytical model and makes it almost equivalent to its numerical counterpart while being analytically tractable. ... Using the concentration profile from Eq. 16 and the empiric shell thickness expression, we show in Fig. 10 the position of the glassy layer r(phi_g)."

Equation (18) replaces the analytical mass-balance shell thickness (12) with a corrected form whose only new parameter, x = 0.21((phi_m-phi_0)/phi_m)^3, is explicitly fitted to the authors' own finite-element solutions of Eq. (4). The corrected expression is then described as closing 'the analytical model' and is used to generate the glassy-layer position r(phi_g) and the deformation measure [R(phi_g)-Rmin]/R(phi_g) in Figs. 10-11, and to compare with experimental data of Seyfert et al. Those final predictions therefore are not independent first-principles outputs; they inherit a calibration to the same numerical simulations whose behavior they purport to reproduce.

full rationale

The core analytical construction is not circular: Eq. (9) is reduced to the implicit profile solutions (11), (13), (16), and (A3)-(A5) by direct integration from stated boundary conditions, and the Peclet threshold (15) follows from the derived length scale. The Brownian dynamics comparison and the Solana hard-disk equation of state provide independent, non-fitted support for the front shape and the alpha=2 compressibility input. The main circular element is confined to Eq. (18): the correction factor x=0.21((phi_m-phi_0)/phi_m)^3 is openly stated to be 'fitted on the full numerical solutions', i.e. on the authors' own finite-element solver, and the resulting 'empiric shell thickness expression' is then used as the basis for the glassy-layer position and maximum-deformation predictions in Figs. 10-11. Thus those downstream predictions are partially calibrated to the very numerical model whose results they are used to explain. Also worth flagging as a limitation, although it is not circularity: Appendix B states that the quasi-static regime is only reached for Pe > 2*alpha*10 and that Eq. (12) underestimates the simulated shell thickness by a factor of 2 to 4 until the empirical correction is added, so the claim of a 'first complete solution' is an asymptotic claim, not a general exact solution. The self-citations to the in-house finite-element framework [23,24] are not load-bearing in the circularity sense, because the solver is used as a numerical benchmark rather than as an authoritative external theorem, but the fit to that same solver is the specific reduction identified above.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on a suspension-balance closure with a scalar particle pressure and a mobility correction, on the no-internal-flow approximation for homogeneous diffusion-limited evaporation, on the existence of a quasi-static moving frame with fixed boundary concentrations phi0 and phi_m, and on an ideal bulk-shell construction for the front position. The paper explicitly acknowledges the local-equilibrium limitation and the need to include non-uniform flux for real substrates. The only fitted number is x in Eq. 18; phi_m is an input selected from close-packing values.

free parameters (2)

x in shell-thickness correction (Eq. 18) = x = 0.21 ((phi_m - phi_0)/phi_m)^3
Empirical coefficient fitted to the authors' finite-element solutions (Fig. 9); used to correct ideal bulk-shell thickness and to compute glassy-layer deformation. This is a fitted parameter, not derived.
maximum packing fraction phi_m = assigned values: 0.64 (hard-sphere rcp), 0.9069 (2D hard disks), 0.28 (sensitivity test)
Chosen from close-packing literature or by hand rather than derived; all predictions (threshold, front position, aspect ratio) are sensitive to it. Included as a chosen input for transparency.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Suspension balance closure: particle pressure is a scalar function Pi = k_B T n Z(phi) and particle drag uses concentration-dependent mobility f(phi); shear stresses are neglected.
Used to close Eq. (4) in Section II, based on Refs. [20-22]; this is a standard but non-trivial modeling choice for dense suspensions.
domain assumption No internal liquid flow: v_f = 0 inside the droplet because evaporation is homogeneous in the diffusion-limited regime and the system is in thermal equilibrium.
Invoked in Section II before Eq. (4); removes advection and makes the problem a pure diffusion problem.
ad hoc to paper Moving-frame quasi-static ansatz: there exists a frame r' with dphi/dt = 0 and relative velocity u = U(t)(R/r)^(n-1) satisfying div(u phi)=0.
Core mathematical assumption introduced in Section II.1; all solutions depend on it. The paper notes in Appendix B that quasi-stationarity only holds for Pe > 2*alpha*10.
ad hoc to paper Boundary concentrations: phi(0)=phi0 and phi(R)=phi_m are imposed to solve Eq. (9).
Stated in Section II.1; phi_m is an input, and the ideal bulk-shell picture breaks down at R_min.
domain assumption Ideal bulk-shell volume conservation for shell thickness h (Eq. 12).
Assumes a sharp interface between bulk at phi0 and shell at phi_m; used to locate the front. The paper finds this underestimates the numerical front and introduces the fitted x correction in Eq. 18.
domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium with no glassy aging or viscoelastic relaxation.
Acknowledged in Section V: the concentration field is assumed to be in equilibrium, leaving phase-transition time scales untreated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Skin formation in evaporating colloidal droplets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4QCPGP4

@misc{pith2026250105196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Skin formation in evaporating colloidal droplets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4QCPGP4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05196}
}

read the original abstract

When a droplet containing a concentrated suspension evaporates in a dry environment, a layer often forms at the interface accumulating non-volatile material. Such a "skin layer" experiences strong stresses and eventually turns mechanically unstable at the last stage of evaporation. Predicting the formation of such skin layer or particle shell and its properties is a crucial problem for applications and constitutes a multi-scale problem, from the micro/nanoscopic scale of the particles to the millimetric size of the droplets. Interestingly, its physical description lies at the interface between deterministic macroscopic evaporation models and microscopic stochastic particles interactions and diffusion. In this work we present a general theoretical approach to obtain the time-dependent particle concentration profile in an implicit manner, for the general case of diffusion-limited evaporation of spherical droplets, and more generally to all 1D non linear diffusion-limited cases with particles pressure and mobility terms of rational form. This approach is compared successfully to numerical solutions obtained using a finite element solver in the limit of high P\'eclet numbers, and to 2D Brownian dynamics simulations. Our results show that the concentration profiles and shell formation onset depend nontrivially on the initial packing fraction. By analyzing these profiles, we determine the position where the glassy layer forms, whose formation is expected to play a critical role in shell buckling. This model provides a robust framework for predicting the size and maximum aspect ratio of the resulting clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05196 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Particles volume fraction profiles at varying times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Numerical packing fraction profiles for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Particles packing fraction profiles for Brownian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Brownian particle dynamics simulations, snapshots at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Rescaled packing fraction profiles in late shell forma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Peclet threshold for shell formation in presence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Rescaled numerical shell thickness given from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Relative maximum droplet retraction after the for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. Numerical concentration profiles for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Numerical concentration profiles for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14. Maximum gradient position for simulated pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15. Normalised particles pressure obtained from ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Effect of transient shell formation on Shock-induced atomization of an evaporating nanofluid droplet
physics.flu-dyn 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Shock-induced breakup of an evaporating nanofluid droplet switches from classical sheet stripping to shell puncture, delamination, and brittle fracture as an evaporation-driven gel or solid shell forms at the surface.
Effect of particle and substrate wettability on evaporation-driven assembly of colloidal monolayers
cond-mat.soft 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Simulations show that particle wettability can override substrate wettability in evaporation-driven colloidal assembly, yielding ordered monolayers even on hydrophobic substrates, with geometric models predicting surf...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

R. D. Deegan, O. Bakajin, T. F. Dupont, G. Huber, S. R. Nagel, and T. A. Witten, Capillary flow as the cause of ring stains from dried liquid drops, Nature 389, 827 (1997)

work page 1997
[2]

Gelderblom, C

H. Gelderblom, C. Diddens, and A. Marin, Evaporation- driven liquid flow in sessile droplets, Soft Matter18, 8535 (2022)

2022
[3]

´A. G. Mar ´ ın, H. Gelderblom, A. Susarrey-Arce, A. van Houselt, L. Lefferts, J. G. Gardeniers, D. Lohse, and J. H. Snoeijer, Building microscopic soccer balls with evapo- rating colloidal fakir drops, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 16455 (2012)

work page 2012
[4]

S. Wooh, H. Huesmann, M. N. Tahir, M. Paven, K. Wich- mann, D. Vollmer, W. Tremel, P. Papadopoulos, and H.- J. Butt, Synthesis of mesoporous supraparticles on su- peramphiphobic surfaces, Advanced Materials 27, 7338 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

Seyfert, E

C. Seyfert, E. J. Berenschot, N. R. Tas, A. Susarrey- Arce, and A. Marin, Evaporation-driven colloidal cluster assembly using droplets on superhydrophobic fractal-like structures, Soft Matter 17, 506 (2021)

work page 2021
[6]

X. Wang, Y. Lian, S. Xiang, S. Tao, M. Kappl, and W. Liu, Droplet evaporation on super liquid-repellent surfaces: A controllable approach for supraparticle fab- rication, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science , 103305 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

Wintzheimer, J

S. Wintzheimer, J. Reichstein, P. Groppe, A. Wolf, B. Fett, H. Zhou, R. Pujales-Paradela, F. Miller, S. M¨ ussig, S. Wenderoth,et al., Supraparticles for sus- tainability, Advanced Functional Materials 31, 2011089 (2021)

work page 2021
[8]

S. Basu, L. Bansal, and A. Miglani, Towards universal buckling dynamics in nanocolloidal sessile droplets: the effect of hydrophilic to superhydrophobic substrates and evaporation modes, Soft matter 12, 4896 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 40 references

[9]

Tsapis, E

N. Tsapis, E. R. Dufresne, S. S. Sinha, C. S. Riera, J. W. Hutchinson, L. Mahadevan, and D. A. Weitz, Onset of buckling in drying droplets of colloidal suspensions, Phys- ical review letters 94, 018302 (2005)

2005
[10]

Archer, J

J. Archer, J. S. Walker, F. K. Gregson, D. A. Hardy, and J. P. Reid, Drying kinetics and particle formation from dilute colloidal suspensions in aerosol droplets, Langmuir 36, 12481 (2020)

2020
[11]

Lintingre, F

E. Lintingre, F. Lequeux, L. Talini, and N. Tsapis, Con- trol of particle morphology in the spray drying of colloidal suspensions, Soft Matter 12, 7435 (2016)

2016
[12]

Boulogne, F

F. Boulogne, F. Giorgiutti-Dauphin´ e, and L. Pauchard, The buckling and invagination process during consolida- 10 tion of colloidal droplets, Soft Matter 9, 750 (2013)

2013
[13]

Bouchaudy and J.-B

A. Bouchaudy and J.-B. Salmon, Drying-induced stresses before solidification in colloidal dispersions: In situ mea- surements, Soft Matter 15, 2768 (2019)

2019
[14]

adsor- bent

developed a mathematical model that could be solved numerically to obtain the time-dependent concentration profile in an evaporating spherical droplet containing col- loidal particles. One of the strongest points of this model is the possibility of computing mechanical stresse...

2025 arXiv
[15]

Sobac, Z

B. Sobac, Z. Larbi, P. Colinet, and B. Haut, Mathemat- ical modeling of the drying of a spherical colloidal drop, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineer- ing Aspects 576, 110 (2019)

2019
[16]

Daubersies and J.-B

L. Daubersies and J.-B. Salmon, Evaporation of solutions and colloidal dispersions in confined droplets, Physical Review E 84, 031406 (2011)

2011
[17]

Loussert, A

C. Loussert, A. Bouchaudy, and J.-B. Salmon, Drying dynamics of a charged colloidal dispersion in a confined drop, Physical Review Fluids 1, 084201 (2016)

2016
[18]

Sobac, S

B. Sobac, S. Dehaeck, A. Bouchaudy, and J.-B. Salmon, Collective diffusion coefficient of a charged colloidal dis- persion: interferometric measurements in a drying drop, Soft matter 16, 8213 (2020)

2020
[19]

D. A. Drew, Mathematical modeling of two-phase flow, Technical Summary Report Wisconsin Univ (1982)

1982
[20]

Zhang and A

D. Zhang and A. Prosperetti, Momentum and energy equations for disperse two-phase flows and their closure for dilute suspensions, International journal of multi- phase flow 23, 425 (1997)

1997
[21]

P. R. Nott, E. Guazzelli, and O. Pouliquen, The suspen- sion balance model revisited, Physics of Fluids 23 (2011)

2011
[22]

T. M. Squires and T. G. Mason, Fluid mechanics of mi- crorheology, Annual review of fluid mechanics 42, 413 (2010)

2010
[23]

Deboeuf, G

A. Deboeuf, G. Gauthier, J. Martin, Y. Yurkovetsky, and J. F. Morris, Particle pressure in a sheared suspension: A bridge from osmosis to granular dilatancy, Physical review letters 102, 108301 (2009)

2009
[24]

Diddens, Detailed finite element method modeling of evaporating multi-component droplets, Journal of Com- putational Physics 340, 670 (2017)

C. Diddens, Detailed finite element method modeling of evaporating multi-component droplets, Journal of Com- putational Physics 340, 670 (2017)

2017
[25]

Diddens, H

C. Diddens, H. Tan, P. Lv, M. Versluis, J. Kuerten, X. Zhang, and D. Lohse, Evaporating pure, binary and ternary droplets: thermal effects and axial symmetry breaking, Journal of fluid mechanics 823, 470 (2017)

2017
[26]

A. F. Routh and W. B. Zimmerman, Distribution of par- ticles during solvent evaporation from films, Chemical Engineering Science 59, 2961 (2004)

2004
[27]

Langmuir, The evaporation of small spheres, Phys

I. Langmuir, The evaporation of small spheres, Phys. Rev. 12, (1918)

1918
[28]

Milani, T

M. Milani, T. Phou, C. Ligoure, L. Cipelletti, and L. Ramos, A double rigidity transition rules the fate of drying colloidal drops, Soft Matter 19, 6968 (2023)

2023
[29]

D. R. Ladiges, A. Nonaka, K. Klymko, G. Moore, J. Bell, S. Carney, A. Garcia, S. Natesh, and A. Donev, Dis- crete ion stochastic continuum overdamped solvent algo- rithm for modeling electrolytes, Physical Review Fluids 6, 044309 (2021)

2021
[30]

Buzzaccaro, R

S. Buzzaccaro, R. Rusconi, and R. Piazza, “sticky” hard spheres: equation of state, phase diagram, and metastable gels, Physical review letters 99, 098301 (2007)

2007
[31]

Piazza, Settled and unsettled issues in particle set- tling, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 056602 (2014)

R. Piazza, Settled and unsettled issues in particle set- tling, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 056602 (2014)

2014
[32]

Daanoun, C

A. Daanoun, C. Tejero, and M. Baus, van der waals the- ory for solids, Physical Review E 50, 2913 (1994)

1994
[33]

Richardson and W

J. Richardson and W. Zaki, The sedimentation of a sus- pension of uniform spheres under conditions of viscous flow, Chemical Engineering Science 3, 65 (1954)

1954
[34]

Peppin, J

S. Peppin, J. Elliott, and M. G. Worster, Solidification of colloidal suspensions, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 554, 147 (2006)

2006
[35]

W. B. Russel, W. Russel, D. A. Saville, and W. R. Schowalter, Colloidal dispersions (Cambridge university press, 1991)

1991
[36]

Dauchot, F

O. Dauchot, F. Ladieu, and C. P. Royall, The glass tran- sition in molecules, colloids and grains: universality and specificity, Comptes Rendus. Physique 24, 1 (2023)

2023
[37]

Gelderblom, A

H. Gelderblom, A. G. Marin, H. Nair, A. Van Houselt, L. Lefferts, J. H. Snoeijer, and D. Lohse, How wa- ter droplets evaporate on a superhydrophobic substrate, Physical Review E 83, 026306 (2011)

2011
[38]

S. K. Wilson and H.-M. D’Ambrosio, Evaporation of ses- sile droplets, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 55, 481 (2023)

2023
[39]

Irving and J

J. Irving and J. G. Kirkwood, The statistical mechan- ical theory of transport processes. iv. the equations of hydrodynamics, The Journal of chemical physics 18, 817 (1950)

1950
[40]

2 1 1 − ψ 2 + 1 + ϕ0 ϕm × arctanh(ψ) + 1 1 − ψ ψ ψfr (A4) α = 3 : Pe3 2 R r(ψfr) 1 − r(ψfr) r =

A. Mulero, I. Cachadina, and J. Solana, The equation of state of the hard-disc fluid revisited, Molecular Physics 107, 1457 (2009). 11 Appendix A: General solution for rational equation of state Starting from the general constitutive equation (9) and a general compressibility ...

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R. D. Deegan, O. Bakajin, T. F. Dupont, G. Huber, S. R. Nagel, and T. A. Witten, Capillary flow as the cause of ring stains from dried liquid drops, Nature 389, 827 (1997)

work page 1997

[2] [2]

Gelderblom, C

H. Gelderblom, C. Diddens, and A. Marin, Evaporation- driven liquid flow in sessile droplets, Soft Matter18, 8535 (2022)

2022

[3] [3]

´A. G. Mar ´ ın, H. Gelderblom, A. Susarrey-Arce, A. van Houselt, L. Lefferts, J. G. Gardeniers, D. Lohse, and J. H. Snoeijer, Building microscopic soccer balls with evapo- rating colloidal fakir drops, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 16455 (2012)

work page 2012

[4] [4]

S. Wooh, H. Huesmann, M. N. Tahir, M. Paven, K. Wich- mann, D. Vollmer, W. Tremel, P. Papadopoulos, and H.- J. Butt, Synthesis of mesoporous supraparticles on su- peramphiphobic surfaces, Advanced Materials 27, 7338 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Seyfert, E

C. Seyfert, E. J. Berenschot, N. R. Tas, A. Susarrey- Arce, and A. Marin, Evaporation-driven colloidal cluster assembly using droplets on superhydrophobic fractal-like structures, Soft Matter 17, 506 (2021)

work page 2021

[6] [6]

X. Wang, Y. Lian, S. Xiang, S. Tao, M. Kappl, and W. Liu, Droplet evaporation on super liquid-repellent surfaces: A controllable approach for supraparticle fab- rication, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science , 103305 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Wintzheimer, J

S. Wintzheimer, J. Reichstein, P. Groppe, A. Wolf, B. Fett, H. Zhou, R. Pujales-Paradela, F. Miller, S. M¨ ussig, S. Wenderoth,et al., Supraparticles for sus- tainability, Advanced Functional Materials 31, 2011089 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [8]

S. Basu, L. Bansal, and A. Miglani, Towards universal buckling dynamics in nanocolloidal sessile droplets: the effect of hydrophilic to superhydrophobic substrates and evaporation modes, Soft matter 12, 4896 (2016)

work page 2016