Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Acoustic-Driven Surface Cleaning with Millimeter-Sized Bubbles at Translational Resonance

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Millimeter bubbles driven at low sub-cavitation frequencies display a translational resonance — peaking near 50 Hz for 1.3 mm bubbles and scaling as $R_0^{-3/2}$ — at which protein-soil removal improves by roughly 90%.

desk verdict A real experimental resonance with a clean R^-3/2 scaling, but the model's restoring force is asserted rather than derived, and the 90% cleaning headline overstates the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06581 v1 pith:ST35WRLG submitted 2025-06-06 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Yan Jun Lin , Zhengyang Liu , Sunghwan Jung This is my paper
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph PACS 47.55.dr
keywords translationalresonancebubblesurfacecleaningsub-cavitationacousticsaddedmasstensionrestoringforceforceddampedoscillatorstop-and-goslidingproteinsoilremoval
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 millimeter-sized bubbles have a distinct 'translational resonance': a sharp peak in side-to-side swaying that sits far below the usual volumetric (Minnaert) resonance of the same bubble. For a 1.3 mm bubble the peak sits near 50 Hz, and it moves to lower frequencies for larger bubbles, scaling as $R_0^{-3/2}$. The paper accounts for the peak with a forced, damped oscillator in which surface tension supplies the restoring force and the surrounding fluid's added mass supplies the inertia. At resonance, sliding bubbles show stop-and-go motion with periodic velocity surges, and protein-soil removal on glass rises from roughly 18% under static or off-resonant driving to about 34% at resonance — an improvement of roughly 90%. If the claim holds, cleaning can be tuned by pairing bubble size with driving frequency, without relying on cavitation.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a forced, damped harmonic oscillator for the bubble's centroid displacement $x(t)$: $m_{\rm eff}\ddot{x}+b\dot{x}+k_{\rm eff}x=F_{\rm ext}(t)$. The inertia is the hydrodynamic added mass of a sphere, $m_{\rm eff}=(2\pi/3)\rho_f R_0^3$, while the restoring force comes from surface tension resisting the curvature change when the bubble deforms from a sphere into an ellipsoid, giving $k_{\rm eff}\simeq\sigma$, independent of $R_0$. The natural frequency $f_{\rm peak}\approx(1/2\pi)\sqrt{3\sigma/(2\pi\rho_f R_0^3)}$ equals the inverse capillary time scale and predicts $f_{\rm peak}\propto R_0^{-3/2}$. This scaling organizes all measured size responses onto a single master curve when frequency is normalized by each bubble's peak frequency, which is the paper's main evidence that surface tension and added mass, not gas compressibility, set the mode.

What would settle it

Measure the swaying-amplitude peak for bubbles of radius 0.45 mm and 1.0 mm in the same tank: the model predicts peaks near 100 Hz and 30 Hz respectively, and halving surface tension with surfactant should shift every peak down by a factor of $1/\sqrt{2}$ (about 40 Hz instead of 56 Hz for the 0.65 mm bubble). If the peaks do not track $\sigma^{1/2}R_0^{-3/2}$, the surface-tension-and-added-mass balance is not the restoring mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: an acoustically driven millimeter bubble supports a translational oscillation mode in which it sways along the acoustic axis, and this mode resonates at a frequency set by the balance of surface tension against hydrodynamic added mass. Modeling the centroid displacement as a forced damped oscillator with spring constant $k_{\rm eff}\approx\sigma$ (restoring force $F_s\simeq\sigma X$) and effective mass $m_{\rm eff}=(2\pi/3)\rho_f R_0^3$ (added-mass coefficient $C_A=1/2$) predicts $f_{\rm peak}=(1/2\pi)\sqrt{3\sigma/(2\pi\rho_f R_0^3)}$, about 56 Hz for $R_0=0.65$ mm against the measured 45–50 Hz, and a size scaling $f_{\rm peak}\propto R_0^{-3/2}$, against the measured exponent $-1.34$. The same resonance governs both a surface-attached swaying bubble and a bubble sliding on an inclined surface, where it produces a stop-and-go trajectory: the tangential velocity oscillates around the static sliding mean with periodic surges. In cleaning trials with a protein-based artificial soil, bubble-mediated removal reached 33.9% at 50 Hz versus 19.3% at 0 Hz and 17.7% at 120 Hz (submersion alone removed about 1.5%), which the paper attributes to resonant, fluctuating shear acting through a locking, hammering, then peeling sequence at soil edges.

Load-bearing premise

The model's predicted frequencies and the $R_0^{-3/2}$ scaling both rest on the assumption that the surface-tension restoring force is simply the surface tension coefficient times the displacement — that is, the effective spring constant equals $\sigma$ and does not itself depend on bubble radius; if that constant were actually twice as large, the predicted 56 Hz peak would become about 79 Hz, and a radius-dependent spring constant would change the entire scaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A cleaning system can be tuned by choosing the bubble size whose translational resonance matches the available acoustic frequency, maximizing cleaning without relying on cavitation.
  • Because $f_{\rm peak}\propto R_0^{-3/2}$, the design formula fixes the operating frequency for any bubble size: larger bubbles resonate at lower frequencies.
  • The resonant stop-and-go sliding produces velocity surges above the steady sliding speed, so the shear available for removing contaminants transiently exceeds what steady sliding can supply.
  • Static and off-resonant driving give cleaning levels comparable to each other (about 18% removal) and far below the resonant level (about 34%), so frequency matching, not acoustic power, is the key control.
  • The same resonance peak appears for both stationary swaying bubbles and inclined sliding bubbles, indicating one tuning rule governs both cleaning geometries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A fixed 50 Hz or 60 Hz line-power acoustic source could be matched by choosing bubble size: about 1.3 mm diameter for 50 Hz and about 1.15 mm for 60 Hz; the paper's scaling implies this sizing rule, though the paper does not state it.
  • The model's claim that the spring constant equals the surface tension coefficient (independent of radius) can be isolated experimentally: halving surface tension with surfactant should shift every resonance by a factor of $1/\sqrt{2}$ in frequency, and any radius dependence of $k_{\rm eff}$ would break the $R_0^{-3/2}$ law — a test the paper does not run.
  • The roughly 90% cleaning gain is demonstrated on a protein-mineral model soil with a single bubble; extending it to live biofilms, multi-bubble clouds, or directly measured wall shear remains untested, as the paper itself defers these to future work.
  • Because the translational resonance occupies tens of hertz while Minnaert resonance occupies kilohertz for the same bubble, the two modes are complementary rather than competing: a combined low-frequency agitation plus high-frequency cavitation protocol is a plausible next step that the paper treats as an alternative rather than a partnership.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 manuscript reports experiments on acoustically driven millimeter-sized bubbles suspended beneath a glass slide, identifying a translational resonance near 50 Hz for a bubble of radius 0.65 mm. The authors model the bubble as a forced, damped harmonic oscillator with a surface-tension restoring force and added-mass inertia, predicting f_peak ∝ R0^-3/2. They report a measured scaling exponent of -1.34 and a collapse of response curves onto a master curve. Cleaning experiments with a protein-based artificial soil show improved removal at the resonant frequency compared with off-resonant and non-acoustic conditions, with the abstract claiming an approximately 90% improvement. The paper argues that this translational resonance offers a non-cavitation-based mechanism for surface cleaning.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, the work provides a new, tunable bubble-cleaning paradigm with a predictive scaling law, supported by open data and detailed experimental methods. The observation of a sharp, size-dependent low-frequency resonance is empirically interesting and could have practical applications. However, the theoretical derivation of the restoring force is not rigorous for the claimed centroid-translation mode, and several quantitative claims (the 'parameter-free' prediction, the 90% improvement, the strength of support for the -3/2 exponent) are overstated relative to the evidence presented. The core experimental findings are likely robust, but the explanatory model requires substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B, Eqs. (1)-(4)] The derivation of the restoring force conflates centroid translation with shape deformation. For a free spherical bubble, a pure translation is the l=1 neutral mode with zero restoring force in inviscid linear theory; the ellipsoidal deformation described in Fig. 2A corresponds to an l=2 shape mode with a much higher natural frequency (about 280 Hz for R0=0.65 mm, not 56 Hz). The observed low-frequency restoring force can only arise from the bubble's contact with the glass slide or a pinned contact line, neither of which appears in the model. The Discussion (Section IV.B) explicitly acknowledges dynamic contact line pinning and an alternative k_eff ∝ σD scaling, so the choice k_eff = σ in Eq. (2) is not derived from the actual constraint. Consequently, the claim that the model 'accurately predicts' the absolute frequency and the R0^-3/2 scaling is not supported; a radius-dependent spring constant, as expected from contact-line effects, would alter the scaling exponent. This is a load-bearing issue for the central theoretical claim.
  2. [IV.D, Fig. 6, Abstract] The abstract's claim of 'approximately 90%' improvement is not uniformly supported by the data. From Fig. 6A, cleaning efficacy at 50 Hz is 33.9%, versus 19.3% at 0 Hz and 17.7% at 120 Hz. This corresponds to a 76% improvement over 0 Hz and a 92% improvement over 120 Hz. Thus the 90% figure only matches the 120 Hz comparison, not the 'off-resonant frequencies or non-acoustic conditions' combined claim in the abstract. In addition, the text reports only the mean values and does not provide standard deviations or the ANOVA/post-hoc statistics (F, p), so the variability of the cleaning measurements cannot be assessed. The claim should be rephrased to specify the comparison and should include error bars and statistical details.
  3. [III.B, Eq. (4), Fig. 4C] The agreement between the theoretical 56 Hz and the observed 50 Hz is sensitive to the O(1) prefactor in k_eff = σ, which is not derived. If the prefactor were 2, the predicted frequency would be about 79 Hz, outside the observed peak. Similarly, the scaling exponent of -1.34 is reported without a confidence interval, and only 8 data points are used; the FWHM error bars in Fig. 4C are mentioned but not quantified. The master-curve collapse in Fig. 4B normalizes frequency by the experimentally determined f_peak, so it is a self-similarity check rather than an independent test of the predicted R0^-3/2 dependence. These issues weaken the claim that the experimental data 'robustly validate' the oscillator model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II.C] The text states 'A total of 30 coated glass slides were prepared (N=5 per condition)', but only five experimental conditions are described, which would require 25 slides. Please clarify the discrepancy.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The figure caption lists 'off-resonant (130 Hz)' while the text and Methods consistently use 120 Hz. Please correct this typo.
  3. [III.B] In the text following Eq. (4), 'this gives f^(exp)_peak ≈ 56 Hz' should say f^(theo)_peak, since 56 Hz is the theoretical prediction.
  4. [II.C] The definition of cleaning efficacy is ambiguous: 'net increase in clean pixels relative to the initial number of soil-covered pixels' could be interpreted as (clean_final - clean_initial)/soil_initial, but the standard metric is (soil_initial - soil_final)/soil_initial. Please clarify the formula used.
  5. [References] Reference [31] ('Definitions.') is incomplete and should be fully specified.
  6. [III.B, Fig. 4B] The master-curve collapse would be more persuasive if the theoretical oscillator response with an appropriate damping ratio were overlaid; currently it only demonstrates that the peaks align after normalization by the experimental resonance frequencies.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: Eq. (4) is a parameter-free prediction (56 Hz vs 45-50 Hz; exponent -1.34 vs -3/2) not fitted to the response data; self-citations are contextual; only the Fig. 4B master-curve normalization is self-referential, and it is non-load-bearing.

  1. self definitional [Section III.B, the 'To further validate' paragraph discussing Fig. 4B.]
    "the driving frequency was normalized by the experimentally determined peak resonant frequency for that size (f/f_peak^(exp)). As shown in figure 4B, the data from all tested bubble sizes collapse onto a single master curve. ... It provides compelling evidence for the robustness of the proposed oscillator model and the R0^-3/2 scaling of the resonant frequency."

    The master curve's frequency axis is normalized by each bubble's own experimentally measured f_peak, so all response peaks are forced to align at f/f_peak = 1 and A/A_peak = 1 by construction. A collapse produced this way is compatible with any peak-scaling law f_peak proportional to R0^k, including the Minnaert k = -1 that the paper explicitly contrasts, so the collapse cannot by itself provide evidence for the particular exponent -3/2. The measured peak frequencies serve simultaneously as the normalizing input and as the target ('the R0^-3/2 scaling of the resonant frequency'), making this validation step self-referential. The step is non-load-bearing: the exponent claim rests on the independent log-log fit (k = -1.34 vs -1.5, Fig. 4C/D), and the absolute prediction of Eq.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The oscillator model (Eqs. 1-4) takes only material constants (sigma = 0.072 N/m, rho_f = 1000 kg/m^3), the measured radius R0, and the textbook added-mass coefficient C_A = 1/2 (Lamb [34]; the co-authored Jung [35] is a non-load-bearing self-citation of a classical result) as inputs, and outputs f_peak^(theo) ~ 56 Hz for R0 = 0.65 mm without fitting any parameter to the response curves; the observed 45-50 Hz peak and the fitted exponent k = -1.34 versus the predicted -3/2 are genuine independent checks. The PIV measurements (Fig. 3) rule out acoustic-input variation as the source of the response peak, so the resonance claim is not an artifact of the forcing. The cleaning comparison at the independently measured resonance frequency (50 Hz vs 0 Hz and 120 Hz) is an external empirical benchmark. Self-citations (refs. 26, 28, 29, 30) supply contextual shear thresholds and the 22-degree inclination choice and are not inputs to the derivation. The k_eff ~ sigma choice with an O(1) prefactor is an acknowledged modeling assumption: the Discussion states k_eff can scale as sigma*D 'under certain deformation regimes, or more simply as k_eff ~ sigma,' and admits that 'dynamic contact line pinning introduces nonlinearity to the restoring force'; underdetermination of this prefactor is a robustness concern, not circularity, and the paper is transparent about it. The only self-referential element is the Fig. 4B master curve, which is normalized by the experimental f_peak and therefore cannot, by construction, test the -3/2 scaling; the paper's phrasing ('compelling evidence for ... the R0^-3/2 scaling') overstates that plot, but the scaling claim stands independently on the log-log fit, and the paper itself flags future work needed on rigorous hydrodynamics, nonlinear restoring forces, and direct damping and contact-line measurements. Overall: no material circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no fitted parameters, but the effective spring constant k_eff = sigma carries an implicit O(1) prefactor chosen by hand, and several idealizations (linear response, C_A=1/2 near a wall, weak damping) are asserted. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • O(1) prefactor C_k in k_eff = C_k sigma = 1 (assumed)
    The scaling argument in Sec. III.B yields k_eff ~ sigma only up to an O(1) coefficient; setting it to 1 is needed for the model to predict 56 Hz. A different prefactor would shift f_theo without changing the R^-3/2 scaling.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Small deformation and linear response: the bubble deforms from a sphere into an ellipsoid with amplitude X much smaller than R0, so the restoring force is linear in X.
    Invoked in Sec. III.B to derive Eq. (2) and the harmonic oscillator model; the paper does not verify X much smaller than R0 quantitatively for all bubble sizes.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective spring constant k_eff = sigma, with no radius-dependent prefactor.
    Scaling argument gives k_eff ~ sigma only up to an O(1) coefficient; setting it to 1 is required for the model to predict 56 Hz. A different prefactor changes f_theo without changing the R^-3/2 scaling.
  • domain assumption Added mass coefficient C_A = 1/2 for a sphere in an unbounded ideal fluid applies to bubbles under a horizontal slide and on an inclined surface.
    Used in Eq. (3); Discussion acknowledges surface proximity can alter added mass and damping but this is not incorporated.
  • domain assumption Viscous damping is weak enough that the undamped natural frequency Eq. (4) equals the observed peak frequency; b is included in Eq. (1) but never measured or used.
    The model quotes a sharp resonance but the damping term b is not evaluated; peak shift due to damping is assumed negligible.
  • domain assumption The measured local fluid velocity from PIV can be used as the driving term for the oscillator; the acoustic force enters through added-mass coupling with fluid acceleration.
    The driving force F_ext(t) in Eq. (1) is not derived or specified; the paper relies on the measured fluid velocity to argue resonance amplification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Acoustic-Driven Surface Cleaning with Millimeter-Sized Bubbles at Translational Resonance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ST35WRLG

@misc{pith2026250606581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Acoustic-Driven Surface Cleaning with Millimeter-Sized Bubbles at Translational Resonance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ST35WRLG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06581}
}
abstract

Traditional surface cleaning methods often suffer from drawbacks such as chemical harshness, potential for surface damage, and high energy consumption. This study investigates an alternative approach: acoustic-driven surface cleaning using millimeter-sized bubbles excited at low, sub-cavitation frequencies. We identify and characterize a distinct translational resonance of these bubbles, occurring at significantly lower frequencies (e.g., 50 Hz for 1.3 mm diameter bubbles) than the Minnaert resonance for a bubble of the same size. Experiments reveal that at this translational resonance, stationary bubbles exhibit amplified lateral swaying, while bubbles sliding on an inclined surface display pronounced "stop-and-go" dynamics. The theoretical model treats the bubble as a forced, damped harmonic oscillator, where surface tension provides the restoring force and the inertia is dominated by the hydrodynamic added mass of the surrounding fluid. It accurately predicts the observed resonant frequency scaling with bubble size ($\propto R_0^{-3/2}$). Cleaning efficacy, assessed using protein-based artificial soil on glass slides, was improved by approximately 90\% when bubbles were driven at their translational resonant frequency compared to off-resonant frequencies or non-acoustic conditions. These findings demonstrate that leveraging translational resonance enhances bubble-induced shear and agitation, offering an effective and sustainable mechanism for surface cleaning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06581 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (A) Schematic of the apparatus with the essential components. (B) Side view showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Translational resonance of an acoustically driven bubble (1.3 mm diameter). (A) Schematic of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (A) Time-trace of horizontal and vertical velocities within a fixed region of interest (ROI) between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Translational resonance scaling in acoustically driven bubbles. (A) Frequency response of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Translational resonance modulates bubble behavior during inclined sliding. (A) Superimposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (A) Cleaning efficacy (mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This pressure difference, acting over an effective surface area (which can be considered to scale with𝑅 2 0), generates a restoring force𝐹 𝑠

    According to the Young-Laplace equation, this curvature difference results in a pressure difference across the bubble interface ofΔ𝑝∼𝜎Δ𝜅, which in turn leads toΔ𝑝∼𝜎𝑋/𝑅 2 0 (figure 2A). This pressure difference, acting over an effective surface area (which can be considered to scale with𝑅 2 0), generates a restoring force𝐹 𝑠. Our analysis indicates that th...

    work page

  2. [2]

    scrubber,

    A linear fit to our experimental data on these logarithmic axes yields a scaling exponent of𝑘=−1.34 (figure 4C). This experimentally determined exponent of𝑘=−1.34 is in close agreement with the theo- retical prediction of𝑘=−1.5 from Eq. (4). The proximity of the experimental scaling to the theoretical𝑅 −3/2 dependence provides strong support for the propo...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Gadelha, A

    J. Gadelha, A. Allende, F. LpezGlvez, P. Fernndez, M. Gil, and J. Egea, EFSA Journal17, e170913 (2019-09-17)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    C. R. Mackerer, G. A. Clay, and E. Z. Dajani, The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics199, 131 (1976-10)

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    Martinez-Romero, M

    D. Martinez-Romero, M. Serrano, A. Carbonell, S. Castillo, F. Riquelme, and D. Valero, inProduction Practices and Quality Assessment of Food Crops: Quality Handling and Evaluation, edited by R. Dris and S. M. Jain (Springer Netherlands, 2004) pp. 233–252

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Li and C

    Z. Li and C. Thomas, Trends in Food Science & Technology35, 138 (2014-02-01)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Adalja and E

    A. Adalja and E. Lichtenberg, Food Policy74, 23 (2018-01-01)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Agarwal, W

    A. Agarwal, W. J. Ng, and Y. Liu, Chemosphere84, 1175 (2011-08-01)

    work page 2011

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    C. Qiao, D. Yang, X. Mao, L. Xie, L. Gong, X. Peng, Q. Peng, T. Wang, H. Zhang, and H. Zeng, Applied Physics Reviews8, 011315 (2021-03-03)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Salta, L

    M. Salta, L. R. Goodes, B. J. Maas, S. P. Dennington, T. J. Secker, and T. G. Leighton, Surface Topography: Metrology and Properties4, 034009 (2016-09), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2016

  3. [11]

    N. Jin, F. Zhang, Y. Cui, L. Sun, H. Gao, Z. Pu, and W. Yang, Particuology66, 1 (2022-07-01)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Howell, E

    J. Howell, E. Ham, and S. Jung, Fluids8, 291 (2023-11), number: 11 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2023

  5. [13]

    P. R. Birkin, D. G. Offin, C. J. B. Vian, and T. G. Leighton, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics17, 21709 (2015-08-12), publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2015

  6. [14]

    N. S. M. Yusof, B. Babgi, Y. Alghamdi, M. Aksu, J. Madhavan, and M. Ashokkumar, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry29, 568 (2016-03-01)

    2016

  7. [15]

    N. Vyas, Q. Wang, and A. Walmsley, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry70, 105338 (2020-09-03)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Almalki and S

    T. Almalki and S. Anand, Dairy4, 100 (2023-03), number: 1 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2023

  9. [17]

    Corbett, Q

    C. Corbett, Q. . Wang, W. Smith, W. . Liu, and A. D. Walmsley, Physics of Fluids35, 123335 (2023-12-18)

    2023

  10. [18]

    J. J. Lee, J. D. Eifert, S. Jung, and L. K. Strawn, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems2, 10.3389/fsufs.2018.00061 (2018-09-19), publisher: Frontiers

    2018

  11. [19]

    Abedini, S

    M. Abedini, S. Hanke, and F. Reuter, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry92, 106272 (2023-01-01). 20

    2023

  12. [20]

    A. K. Krella, Materials16, 2058 (2023-03-02)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Ju and J.-s

    H.-j. Ju and J.-s. Choi, Machines10, 793 (2022-09), number: 9 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2022

  14. [22]

    D. N. Avhad and V. K. Rathod, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry22, 257 (2015-01-01)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Bochu, S

    W. Bochu, S. Lanchun, Z. Jing, Y. Yuanyuan, and Y. Yanhong, Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 32, 35 (2003-10-01)

    2003

  16. [24]

    A. Z. Sulaiman, A. Ajit, R. M. Yunus, and Y. Chisti, Biochemical Engineering Journal54, 141 (2011-05-15)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Lanchun, W

    S. Lanchun, W. Bochu, L. Zhiming, D. Chuanren, D. Chuanyun, and A. Sakanishi, Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces30, 43 (2003-07-01)

    2003

  18. [26]

    W. G. Pitt and S. A. Ross, Biotechnology Progress19, 1038 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Tsagkari and W

    E. Tsagkari and W. T. Sloan, Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering41, 757 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Esmaili, P

    E. Esmaili, P. Shukla, J. D. Eifert, and S. Jung, Physical Review Fluids4, 043603 (2019-04-29), publisher: American Physical Society

    2019

  21. [29]

    N. F. Owens, D. Gingell, and P. R. Rutter, Journal of Cell Science87 ( Pt 5), 667 (1987-06)

    1987

  22. [30]

    Hamidzadeh, A

    F. Hamidzadeh, A. Hooshanginejad, K. Huang, T. H. Phan, S. Jung, and L. Pan, Langmuir: the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids40, 21241 (2024-10-08)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Hooshanginejad, T

    A. Hooshanginejad, T. Sheppard, P. Xu, J. Manyalla, J. Jaicks, E. Esmaili, and S. Jung, Physical Review Fluids8, 043602 (2023-04-28), publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  24. [32]

    Hooshanginejad, T

    A. Hooshanginejad, T. J. Sheppard, J. Manyalla, J. Jaicks, and S. Jung, inVolume 2: Multiphase Flow (MFTC); Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFDTC); Micro and Nano Fluid Dynamics (MNFDTC) (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2022-08-03) p. V002T04A007

    2022

  25. [33]

    S. D. Kalev and G. S. Toor, inGreen Chemistry, edited by B. Trk and T. Dransfield (Elsevier, 2018- 01-01) pp. 339–357

    2018

  26. [34]

    Okumura, F

    K. Okumura, F. Chevy, D. Richard, D. Qu´er´e, and C. Clanet, Europhysics Letters (EPL)62, 237 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Lamb,Hydrodynamics(New York,: Dover publications, 1945)

    H. Lamb,Hydrodynamics(New York,: Dover publications, 1945)

    1945

  28. [36]

    Jung, Scientific Reports11, 15984 (2021)

    S. Jung, Scientific Reports11, 15984 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    W. Blel, P. Legentilhomme, T. Bnzech, J. Legrand, and C. Le Gentil-Lelivre, Journal of Food Engi- neering90, 433 (2009-02-01)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Ziskind, M

    G. Ziskind, M. Fichman, and C. Gutfinger, Journal of Aerosol Science31, 703 (2000-06-01)

    2000

  31. [39]

    Minnaert, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science16, 235 (1933)

    M. Minnaert, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science16, 235 (1933). 21

    1933

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.