Shrinking microbubbles with microfluidics: mathematical modelling to control microbubble sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbubbles have applications in industry and life-sciences. In medicine, small encapsulated bubbles (<10 μm) are desirable because of their utility in drug/oxygen delivery, sonoporation, and ultrasound diagnostics. While there are various techniques for generating microbubbles, microfluidic methods are distinguished due to their precise control and ease-of-fabrication. Nevertheless, sub-10 μm diameter bubble generation using microfluidics remains challenging, and typically requires expensive equipment and cumbersome setups. Recently, our group reported a microfluidic platform that shrinks microbubbles to sub-10 μm diameters. The microfluidic platform utilizes a simple microbubble-generating flow-focusing geometry, integrated with a vacuum shrinkage system, to achieve microbubble sizes that are desirable in medicine, and pave the way to eventual clinical uptake of microfluidically generated microbubbles. A theoretical framework is now needed to relate the size of the microbubbles produced and the system's input parameters. In this manuscript, we characterize microbubbles made with various lipid concentrations flowing in solutions that have different interfacial tensions, and monitor the changes in bubble size along the microfluidic channel under various vacuum pressures. We use the physics governing the shrinkage mechanism to develop a mathematical model that predicts the resulting bubble sizes and elucidates the dominant parameters controlling bubble sizes. The model shows a good agreement with the experimental data, predicting the resulting microbubble sizes under different experimental input conditions. We anticipate that the model will find utility in enabling users of the microfluidic platform to engineer bubbles of specific sizes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".