Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Droplet Outbursts from Onion Cutting

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cutting an onion releases droplets in a two-stage burst, and blunt blades make the burst far more violent.

desk verdict Main story holds up—blunter blades cause more and faster droplets—but the velocity scaling is the soft spot, resting on an unmeasured pressure assumption and a broad fit, while the fracture-force model gets genuine external support from Instron tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06016 v1 pith:V536QJI2 submitted 2025-05-09 physics.flu-dyn

Zixuan Wu , Alireza Hooshanginejad , Weilun Wang , Chung-Yuen Hui , Sunghwan Jung This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords onioncuttingdropletejectionbladesharpnesstwo-stageatomizationpressurizedfracturedigitalimagecorrelationparticletrackingvelocimetrymembrane-on-springmodel
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 tries to pin down the mechanical origin of the tear-inducing spray released when an onion is cut. Using high-speed imaging, particle tracking, and strain mapping, it shows that droplet formation proceeds in two stages: a violent burst when the onion's tough outer skin finally fractures under the blade, followed by slower breakup of liquid ligaments in air. Blunter blades indent deeper before the skin gives way, storing more elastic energy in the soft mesophyll underneath, so they eject more droplets—up to roughly forty times more—and at higher speeds. The authors support this picture with a membrane-on-a-spring model that predicts the measured fracture force, and they argue the same mechanism makes blade sharpness a real factor in limiting pathogen-laden kitchen splashes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the stiffness contrast between the onion's thin epidermis and its juice-filled mesophyll, captured by a membrane-on-spring model: the skin is treated as an inextensible membrane and the soft interior as an elastic foundation. Solving the equilibrium equation $$\frac{\tilde z''}{\sqrt{1+\tilde z'^2}} = -\gamma(\tilde\delta_c - \tilde z)$$ with a shooting method gives the deformed skin profile and, through a free-body balance, the fracture force $$F_c = E L_c\left(\frac{a\delta_c}{L_o}+\frac{L_o z'(0)}{2\gamma}\right)$$. A separate scaling chain—critical indentation $\delta_c \sim r_b^{l/m}$, cellular pressure $P_{\mathrm{cell}}\sim \epsilon^n\sim r_b^{nl/m}$, and initial droplet speed $V_{d,0}\sim r_b^{nl/2m}$—connects blade bluntness directly to ejection speed. These pieces let the paper predict an independently measured fracture force from optical measurements of indentation depth.

What would settle it

Embed a miniature pressure sensor in the mesophyll just under the blade path and record the pressure at the moment the epidermis fractures for blades with tip radii from about 1 µm to 13 µm. The model predicts $V_{d,0}\propto\sqrt{P_{\mathrm{fracture}}}$; if measured initial droplet speeds do not track the square root of that pressure, the no-relaxation assumption is wrong and the model needs a rate-dependent fracture criterion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the core discovery is that the onion's thin epidermis acts as a pressure reservoir: it holds back the soft, juice-filled mesophyll while the blade compresses it, and when the epidermis finally tears, the stored pressure drives a fast atomizing jet before slower ligament fragmentation takes over. The quantitative claim is that initial droplet speed grows with blade tip radius as $V_{d,0}\sim r_b^{nl/2m}$, with the exponent in the range 0.52–0.94, because a blunter blade creates a wider stress zone, a deeper critical indentation $\delta_c$, and a higher cellular pressure at fracture. Independent Instron measurements of fracture force fall inside the force range predicted by the membrane-on-spring model, which the authors take as confirmation that the mechanism is right.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the pressurised mesophyll does not lose a significant part of its stored elastic energy during the instant the skin fractures, so the pressure at rupture sets the droplet speed; if relaxation, viscous loss, or rate-dependent fracture matters during that instant, the predicted blade-width dependence of droplet speed does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sharpening a blade from a tip radius of roughly 13 µm to 1 µm cuts the number of ejected droplets by up to a factor of about forty, and also reduces their average speed and kinetic energy.
  • Faster cutting raises droplet count and total energy, but less than quadratically, because viscoelastic dissipation in the tissue absorbs part of the blade's energy.
  • The fastest and most energetic droplets are produced in the first half-millisecond after the skin fractures, so the highest exposure risk is immediately beside the cut plane during the initial burst.
  • Because many ejected droplets have Stokes numbers around $10^{-2}$ to $10^{0}$, the smaller ones can stay suspended in air currents rather than following a ballistic path, which matters for airborne spread in kitchens.
  • The same pressurization story should apply to other fruits and vegetables with tough outer layers over soft liquid-filled tissue, making blade sharpness relevant beyond onions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is generic, pre-scoring or venting the skin of an onion before cutting should reduce the stored pressure and therefore the droplet burst; this is a testable kitchen intervention the paper does not explore.
  • The statistics suggest a sharpness threshold around a 7 µm tip radius, below which droplet size and speed stop changing significantly; measuring that threshold across blade geometries could give a quantitative 'sharp enough' standard for kitchen knives.
  • The chilled-onion result—unchanged droplet velocity but larger ejected volume—implies temperature changes the size of the fractured zone rather than the fracture stress; direct fracture-toughness measurements on chilled mesophyll would test this.
  • Extending the membrane-on-spring model with a rate-dependent fracture criterion would predict not just the fracture force but the time-resolved droplet velocity, which the current quasi-static criterion cannot do.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an experimental and theoretical study of droplet ejection during onion cutting. Using a guillotine setup with high-speed imaging, custom PTV, and DIC, the authors identify a two-stage process: a violent initial burst from pressurized mesophyll once the epidermis fractures, followed by slower ligament fragmentation. They report that blunter blades (larger tip radius rb) and higher cutting speed Ub increase droplet count, size, and kinetic energy. A scaling model is proposed that relates rb to the critical indentation depth δc and then to the initial droplet velocity via Vd,0 ~ rb^(nl/2m). A membrane-on-spring model is developed for the epidermis/mesophyll bilayer; using the measured δc, it predicts fracture forces that fall within the range of independent Instron measurements. The authors conclude that sharpening blades reduces droplet emission and, speculatively, pathogen-laden aerosol spread.

Significance. The work is significant for fluid-structure interaction in soft composites and for kitchen hygiene. Its strengths include explicit high-speed visualization of the two-stage ejection, quantitative statistics with Mann-Whitney tests, and a genuine external validation of the fracture-force model against Instron data (Fig. 4B). The proposed scaling Vd,0 ~ rb^(nl/2m) is a clear and falsifiable prediction, but it is the least supported part of the paper because the pressure-to-kinetic-energy conversion is assumed rather than measured. If that link is strengthened, the paper would provide a coherent quantitative account of why blade sharpness matters.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.D; scaling before Fig. 2B] The central prediction Vd,0 ~ rb^(nl/2m) is load-bearing and depends on two assumptions that are not validated in the manuscript. First, the relation Pe ~ rho_d Vd,0^2 assumes the internal pressure is not relaxed during fracture; the pressure Pcell is never measured, so no evidence is given that the Bernoulli limit holds on the fracture time scale. Second, the pressure–strain exponent n=1.9–2.3 is taken from ref [43] for generic vegetable tissue, not from onion mesophyll at cutting rates. The only test of the scaling, Fig. 4F, uses manually tracked droplets in the first 0.5 ms (Methods IV.A) and compares them to a predicted band nl/2m = 0.52–0.94; this band is too broad to distinguish the proposed mechanism from a generic positive correlation between Vd,0 and rb. I recommend adding a direct pressure measurement (e.g., a micro-pressure sensor at the blade tip) or a poroelastic estimate showing that viscous dissipation and pressure relaxation are negligible over the fracture/acceleration time; failing that, the claims in Sec. III should be weakened from "explains well" to "consistent with a range of exponents."
  2. [Sec. II.C and Fig. 3D-F] The DIC strain maps show a region of negative ϵx directly beneath the blade tip, which the text attributes to prematurely ruptured tissue and says "causes some errors that limit the rigor in DIC analysis." Because the critical indentation depth δc is extracted from these DIC data (Sec. II.D, Fig. 4E) and is the input to the membrane-spring model, the manuscript should quantify how this artifact affects δc. Without an uncertainty estimate for δc, the agreement of the fracture-force prediction in Fig. 4B could be partly accidental.
  3. [Sec. II.E, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The membrane-spring model is not an independent predictive test of the fracture force, because gamma is not measured directly but is inferred from the same δc used in the scaling analysis. The comparison to Instron data in Fig. 4B is nevertheless a useful external check, and the fact that the independent data fall within the grey band is a strength. However, the abstract's phrase "numerical calculations accurately explain the onion critical fracture force" should be qualified: the prediction is bracketed by the fitted contact length Lc = 2.56–4.80 Lo, and the two bounding curves have R2 ≈ 0.72, so the statement of "accurate" should be softened accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected in revision: "Assumming" (Sec. II.B), "balde" (Sec. II.D), "signifcant" (Sec. II.B), "examing" (Sec. II.C), "oninon" (Sec. III), and "ddressed" (Sec. IV.A).
  2. [Sec. II.A and Fig. 2A caption] The wedge angle is reported as α≈8.5° in the text but as 8° in the Fig. 2A caption; please reconcile these values.
  3. [Sec. II.B, paragraph on total volume] The sentence "We further observe that the total volume of ejected droplets with both blade sharpness rb and cutting speed Ub" is missing a verb and should read "increases with both blade sharpness rb and cutting speed Ub."
  4. [Sec. II.D, paragraph after Eq. (2) in context] The phrase "This distribution is highly dependent on rb" appears twice in consecutive sentences; please remove the duplication.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. III] The abstract's reference to "droplets infected with pathogens" is not directly measured in the paper; the manuscript only cites prior work on contamination. Please rephrase to "potentially pathogen-laden" or add an explicit caveat that pathogen content was not assayed here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central scaling is a semi-empirical chain with independent velocity data, and the membrane model is checked against independent Instron forces.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in a load-bearing sense. The central prediction Vd,0 ~ rb^{nl/2m} (Sec. II.D) is assembled from separately measured or externally cited ingredients: the measured force-indentation exponent m, the measured fracture-force exponent l, and an external constitutive relation epsilon^n ~ Pcell from Zhu & Melrose (ref [43]). The early-stage droplet velocities in Fig. 4F are independently measured by high-speed PTV with manual checks (Methods IV.A) and are not used to fit any parameter in the scaling; they are compared with a predicted band. The membrane-on-spring model (Sec. II.E) does use the experimentally extracted critical indentation depth delta_c as a boundary condition, so it does not independently predict delta_c; however, its output is the fracture force Fc, a different quantity, and the comparison with independently measured Instron fracture forces is a genuine external benchmark. The only overlap between the authors and the cited literature appears in ref [33] (Kim, Park, Gruszewski, Schmale, Jung), which supports a standard drag-law formula and is not load-bearing for the central mechanism. No equation in the paper is shown to reduce to its own input by construction, and no self-citation is used to forbid alternatives. The main caveats—pressure relaxation neglected at fracture, pressure inferred rather than measured, and a wide predicted exponent band—are empirical or modeling uncertainties, not circularity.

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

The central scaling law for droplet velocity with blade width is assembled from empirically fitted exponents (l from Fc-rb data, m from F-delta curves, n from the literature) plus a measured indentation depth delta_c that calibrates the membrane model. The fracture-force prediction is the cleanest test because Instron Fc is independent of delta_c, but the velocity scaling is semi-empirical rather than a first-principles derivation.

free parameters (5)
  • l (Fc vs rb exponent) = 0.82
    Fitted from Instron critical force data in Fig. 4B; used in scaling Vd ~ rb^(nl/2m).
  • m (F-delta exponent) = 1 to 1.5
    Fitted from normalized indentation curves in Fig. 4C across indentor types and speeds; used to relate delta_c to Fc.
  • n (pressure-strain exponent) = 1.9 to 2.3
    Taken from cited literature [43] for plant tissue compression; combined with l/m to predict Vd exponent.
  • gamma = not reported
    Non-dimensional membrane-spring parameter determined by matching numerical profile to measured delta_c (Fig. 4D/H).
  • Lc (blade-onion contact length) = 9.2 +/- 2.8 mm
    Measured contact length; upper and lower bounds used to bracket predicted Fc in Fig. 4B.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Plane-strain 2D reduction of blade-onion contact
    Assumed since stress zone length L* is much smaller than onion radius and blade length (Sec. II.C).
  • domain assumption Onion skin modeled as inextensible membrane with zero thickness
    Stated in Sec. II.E for the bi-layer model.
  • domain assumption Mesophyll treated as linear-elastic spring foundation with E ~1.4 MPa
    Used in ODE (4); modulus estimated from Instron data.
  • ad hoc to paper Pressure-velocity coupling Pe ~ rho V^2 at the moment of fracture
    Assumed in Sec. II.B to relate internal pressure to ejected droplet velocity; not derived.
  • domain assumption Critical indentation depth delta_c extracted from DIC is the governing state variable for fracture
    Used as empirical boundary condition in the membrane-spring model (Sec. II.D/E).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Droplet Outbursts from Onion Cutting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V536QJI2

@misc{pith2026250506016,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Droplet Outbursts from Onion Cutting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V536QJI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06016}
}
read the original abstract

Cutting onions often leads to tear-inducing aerosol release in kitchen, yet the underlying mechanics of droplet generation remain poorly understood. In this work, we combine custom-developed high-speed particle tracking velocimetry (PTV) and digital image correlation (DIC) to visualize and quantify droplet ejection during onion cutting. We show that droplet formation occurs via a two-stage process: an initial high-speed ejection driven by internal pressurization of the onion first-layer, followed by slower ligament fragmentation in air. By systematically varying blade sharpness and cutting speed, we find that faster or blunter blades significantly increase both the number and energy of ejected droplets. Strain mapping via DIC reveals that the onion's tough epidermis acts as a barrier to fracture, enabling the underlying mesophyll to undergo significant compression before rupture, thereby increasing both the quantity and velocity of the resulting splashed droplets. Developing a scaling model and a simplified bi-layer model with a spring foundation, we experimentally and theoretically demonstrated how sharpened blades lead to not only fewer but also slower droplets. Numerical calculations accurately explain the onion critical fracture force obtained from independent Instron tests. The work highlights the importance of blade sharpening routines to limiting ejected droplets infected with pathogens in the kitchen, which pack additional outburst energy due to vegetables' outer strong casings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06016 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A shows the experimental setup with the ˆy axis defined along the onion’s pole direction, i.e. from root to shoot. A representative SEM image of the blade tip radius rb is shown in the inset. More details on sample preparation are provided in Supplementary Note 1. Cutting speeds is on the order of 0.1 to 1.0 m/s, measured from video records of onion cutting by chefs on public records (see Supplementary Note 1). A sc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    Zhu and J

    H. Zhu and J. Melrose, A mechanics model for the compression of plant and vegetative tissues, Journal of theoretical biology 221, 89 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [1]

    Pareek, N

    S. Pareek, N. A. Sagar, S. Sharma, and V. Kumar, Onion (allium cepa l.), Fruit and Vegetable Phytochemicals: Chemistry and Human Health, 2nd Edition 2, 1145 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Lanzotti, The analysis of onion and garlic, Journal of chromatography A 1112, 3 (2006)

    V. Lanzotti, The analysis of onion and garlic, Journal of chromatography A 1112, 3 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [3]

    New mexico state university onion breeding program, https://onion.nmsu.edu/index.html

    work page

  5. [4]

    Block, Garlic and other alliums (RSC publishing, Cambridge, 2010)

    E. Block, Garlic and other alliums (RSC publishing, Cambridge, 2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    M. Kato, N. Masamura, J. Shono, D. Okamoto, T. Abe, and S. Imai, Production and characterization of tearless and non-pungent onion, Scientific Reports 6, 23779 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Spare, A

    C. Spare, A. I. Virtanen, J. Munch-Petersen, P. Kvande, and E. Meisingseth, On the lachrymatory factor in onion (allium cepa) vapours and its precursor, Acta Chem. Scand 17, 641 (1963)

    work page 1963

  8. [7]

    E. F. Kohman, The chemical components of onion vapors responsible for wound-healing qualities, Science 106, 625 (1947)

    work page 1947

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    R. W. Style, R. Tutika, J. Y. Kim, and M. D. Bartlett, Solid–liquid composites for soft multifunctional materials, Advanced Functional Materials 31, 2005804 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Mehrabian, J

    H. Mehrabian, J. Harting, and J. H. Snoeijer, Soft particles at a fluid interface, Soft Matter 12, 1062 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    S. F. Arnbjerg-Nielsen, M. D. Biviano, and K. H. Jensen, Competition between slicing and buckling underlies the erratic nature of paper cuts, Physical Review E 110, 025003 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Plummer, C

    A. Plummer, C. Adkins, J.-F. Louf, A. Koˇ smrlj, and S. S. Datta, Obstructed swelling and fracture of hydrogels, Soft matter 20, 1425 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    Lilin, J

    P. Lilin, J. E. Elkhoury, I. R. Peters, and I. Bischofberger, Fracture and relaxation in dense cornstarch suspensions, PNAS nexus 3, pgad451 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    D. A. Watson, J. L. Stephen, and A. K. Dickerson, Jet amplification and cavity formation induced by penetrable fabrics in hydrophilic sphere entry, Physics of Fluids 30, 082109 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    B. Wang, J. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Ke, H. Zhang, Y. Yang, and J. Wu, Effects of tongue hair flexural deformation on viscous fluid transport by bees, Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 18, 016009 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    Herrera-Amaya, E

    A. Herrera-Amaya, E. K. Seber, D. W. Murphy, W. L. Patry, T. S. Knowles, M. M. Bubel, A. E. Maas, and M. L. Byron, Spatiotemporal asymmetry in metachronal rowing at intermediate reynolds numbers, Integrative and comparative biology 61, 1579 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    N. M. Smith, H. Ebrahimi, R. Ghosh, and A. K. Dickerson, High-speed microjets issue from bursting oil gland reservoirs of citrus fruit, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, E5887 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    F. Box, C. Jacquemot, M. Adda-Bedia, and D. Vella, Cloaking by coating: how effectively does a thin, stiff coating hide a soft substrate?, Soft Matter 16, 4574 (2020)

    2020

  11. [18]

    H. Shin, S. Jo, and A. G. Mikos, Biomimetic materials for tissue engineering, Biomaterials 24, 4353 (2003)

    2003

  12. [19]

    Trivedi, C

    D. Trivedi, C. D. Rahn, W. M. Kier, and I. D. Walker, Soft robotics: Biological inspiration, state of the art, and future research, Applied bionics and biomechanics 5, 99 (2008)

    2008

  13. [20]

    Wallin, J

    T. Wallin, J. Pikul, and R. F. Shepherd, 3d printing of soft robotic systems, Nature Reviews Materials 3, 84 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Wang and G

    J. Wang and G. Du, Covid-19 may transmit through aerosol, Irish Journal of Medical Science 189, 1143 (2020)

    2020

  15. [22]

    L. Morawska, Droplet fate in indoor environments, or can we prevent the spread of infection?, in Indoor Air 2005: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate (Tsinghua Univer- sity Press, 2005) 9–23. 12

    2005

  16. [23]

    Garvey, N

    M. Garvey, N. Williams, A. Gardiner, C. Ruston, M. Wilkinson, M. Kiernan, J. Walker, and E. Holden, The sink splash zone, Journal of Hospital Infection 135, 154 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Hamidah, D

    N. Hamidah, D. Nindito, T. Garib, W. Nuswantoro, and M. Santoso, Spray dipping system sinks hygienic and water saving, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2629 (AIP Publishing, 2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Thurairajah, X

    K. Thurairajah, X. Song, J. Zhu, M. Shi, E. A. Barlow, R. C. Hurd, and Z. Pan, Splash-free urinals for global sustainability and accessibility: Design through physics and differential equations, PNAS nexus 4, pgaf087 (2025)

    2025

  19. [26]

    D. G. Newell, M. Koopmans, L. Verhoef, E. Duizer, A. Aidara-Kane, H. Sprong, M. Opsteegh, M. Langelaar, J. Threfall, F. Scheutz, et al., Food-borne diseases—the challenges of 20 years ago still persist while new ones continue to emerge, International journal of food microbiolo...

    2010

  20. [27]

    K. C. Klontz, B. Timbo, S. Fein, and A. Levy, Prevalence of selected food consumption and preparation behaviors associated with increased risks of food-borne disease, Journal of Food Protection 58, 927 (1995)

    1995

  21. [28]

    H. Lai, Y. Tang, Z. Wang, F. Ren, L. Kong, X. Jiao, and J. Huang, Handling practice as a critical point influencing the transmission route of campylobacter throughout a commercial restaurant kitchen in china, Food Control 139, 109056 (2022)

    2022

  22. [29]

    H. Lai, Y. Tang, F. Ren, X.-a. Jiao, and J. Huang, Evaluation of hygiene practice for reducing campylobacter contamination on cutting boards and risks associated with chicken handling in kitchen environment, Foods 12, 3245 (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    A. H. Lefebvre and V. G. McDonell, Atomization and sprays (CRC press, Boca Raton, 2017)

    2017

  24. [31]

    S. P. Lin and R. D. Reitz, Drop and spray formation from a liquid jet, Annual review of fluid mechanics 30, 85 (1998)

    1998

  25. [32]

    Dumouchel, On the experimental investigation on primary atomization of liquid streams, Experiments in fluids 45, 371 (2008)

    C. Dumouchel, On the experimental investigation on primary atomization of liquid streams, Experiments in fluids 45, 371 (2008)

    2008

  26. [33]

    S. Kim, H. Park, H. A. Gruszewski, D. G. Schmale, and S. Jung, Vortex-induced dispersal of a plant pathogen by raindrop impact, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 4917 (2019)

    2019

  27. [34]

    Clift and W

    R. Clift and W. Gauvin, Motion of entrained particles in gas streams, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 49, 439 (1971)

    1971

  28. [35]

    Hasegawa, M

    T. Hasegawa, M. Suganuma, and H. Watanabe, Anomaly of excess pressure drops of the flow through very small orifices, Physics of Fluids 9, 1 (1997)

    1997

  29. [36]

    Villermaux, Fragmentation, Annu

    E. Villermaux, Fragmentation, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 419 (2007)

    2007

  30. [37]

    Wang and L

    Y. Wang and L. Bourouiba, Unsteady sheet fragmentation: droplet sizes and speeds, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 848, 946 (2018)

    2018

  31. [38]

    Yamagata, X

    Y. Yamagata, X. Lu, Y. Sekiguchi, and C. Sato, Experimental investigation of mode i fracture energy of adhesively bonded joints under impact loading conditions, Applied adhesion science 5, 1 (2017)

    2017

  32. [39]

    Mahiuddin, D

    M. Mahiuddin, D. Godhani, L. Feng, F. Liu, T. Langrish, and M. Karim, Application of caputo fractional rheological model to determine the viscoelastic and mechanical properties of fruit and vegetables, Postharvest Biology and Technology 163, 111147 (2020)

    2020

  33. [40]

    K. L. Johnson and K. L. Johnson, Contact mechanics (Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 1987)

    1987

  34. [41]

    I. N. Sneddon, The relation between load and penetration in the axisymmetric boussinesq problem for a punch of arbitrary profile, International journal of engineering science 3, 47 (1965)

    1965

  35. [42]

    Jafari Malekabadi, M

    A. Jafari Malekabadi, M. Khojastehpour, B. Emadi, and M. Golzarian, Determination of elasticity modulus and poisson ratio of two onion varieties under different loading conditions, Journal of Agricultural Machinery 6, 114 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    J. L. Synge and B. A. Griffith, Principles of Mechanics, 2nd Edition (Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 2011) 99–105

    2011

  37. [45]

    J. F. Vincent, Fracture properties of plants, in Advances in botanical research, Vol. 17 (Elsevier, 1990) 235–287

    1990

  38. [46]

    A. J. Bidhendi, O. Lampron, F. P. Gosselin, and A. Geitmann, Cell geometry regulates tissue fracture, Nature Communi- cations 14, 8275 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    How to actually prevent tears when chopping onions, https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/how-to-cut-onions- without-crying

  40. [48]

    Treitel, Elasticity, plasticity and fine structure of plant cell walls, Journal of Colloid Science 1, 327 (1946)

    O. Treitel, Elasticity, plasticity and fine structure of plant cell walls, Journal of Colloid Science 1, 327 (1946)

    1946

  41. [49]

    C. N. Berger, S. V. Sodha, R. K. Shaw, P. M. Griffin, D. Pink, P. Hand, and G. Frankel, Fresh fruit and vegetables as vehicles for the transmission of human pathogens, Environmental microbiology 12, 2385 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.