Dynamic evolution of the particle size distribution in suspension polymerization reactors: A comparative study on Monte Carlo and sectional grid methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the present study, an efficient Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm and a fixed pivot technique (FPT) are described for the prediction of the dynamic evolution of the droplet/particle size distribution (DSD/PSD) in both non‐reactive liquid–liquid dispersions and reactive liquid(solid)–liquid suspension polymerization systems. Semi‐empirical and phenomenological expressions are employed to describe the breakage and coalescence rates of dispersed monomer droplets/particles, in terms of the type and concentration of suspending agent, quality of agitation, and evolution of the physical, thermodynamic and transport properties of the polymerization system. Moreover, the validity of the numerical calculations is first examined via a direct comparison of simulation results obtained by both numerical methods with experimental data on average particle diameter and droplet/particle size distributions for both non‐reactive liquid–liquid dispersions and the free‐radical suspension polymerization of methyl methacrylate (MMA). Additional comparisons between the MC and the FP numerical methods are carried out under different polymerization conditions. The simulation results reveal that both numerical methods are capable of predicting the mean and the distributed particulate properties of both non‐reactive and reactive suspension processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".