Concurrent Modeling of Hydrodynamics and Interaction Forces Improves Particle Deposition Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely believed that media surface roughness enhances particle deposition-numerous, but inconsistent, examples of this effect have been reported. Here, a new mathematical framework describing the effects of hydrodynamics and interaction forces on particle deposition on rough spherical collectors in absence of an energy barrier was developed and validated. In addition to quantifying DLVO force, the model includes improved descriptions of flow field profiles and hydrodynamic retardation functions. This work demonstrates that hydrodynamic effects can significantly alter particle deposition relative to expectations when only the DLVO force is considered. Moreover, the combined effects of hydrodynamics and interaction forces on particle deposition on rough, spherical media are not additive, but synergistic. Notably, the developed model's particle deposition predictions are in closer agreement with experimental observations than those from current models, demonstrating the importance of inclusion of roughness impacts in particle deposition description/simulation. Consideration of hydrodynamic contributions to particle deposition may help to explain discrepancies between model-based expectations and experimental outcomes and improve descriptions of particle deposition during physicochemical filtration in systems with nonsmooth collector surfaces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".