Droplet formation in microfluidic T-junction generators operating in the transitional regime. III. Dynamic surfactant effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study extends our previous work on droplet generation in microfluidic T-junction generators to include dynamic interfacial tension effects created by the presence of surfactants. In Paper I [T. Glawdel, C. Elbuken, and C. L. Ren, Phys. Rev. E 85, 016322 (2012)], we presented experimental findings regarding the formation process in the squeezing-to-transition regime, and in Paper II [T. Glawdel, C. Elbuken, and C. L. Ren, Phys. Rev. E 85, 016323 (2012)] we developed a theoretical model that describes the performance of T-junction generators without surfactants. Here we study dynamic interfacial tension effects for two surfactants, one with a small molecular weight that adsorbs quickly, and the other with a large molecular weight that adsorbs slowly. Using the force balance developed in Paper II we extract the dynamic interfacial tension from high speed videos obtained during experiments. We then develop a theoretical model to predict the dynamic interfacial tension in microfluidic T-junction generators as a function of the surfactant properties, flow conditions, and generator design. This model is then incorporated into the overall model for generator performance to effectively predict the size of droplets produced when surfactants are present.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".