Influence of the droplet trajectory on the resulting droplet deformation and droplet size distribution in high‐pressure homogenizer orifices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High‐pressure homogenization is a commonly used process to produce emulsions with a droplet size of less than 1 μm. During the process, a pre‐emulsion is pumped with a pressure of several mega Pascal through a disruption unit, where the droplets are deformed and subsequently broken up in the turbulent area of the disruption unit. The scope of this investigation is to determine the influence of the droplet trajectory on the droplet size distribution of emulsions of different viscosity ratios or interfacial tension. Measurements of the droplet deformation prior to the droplet breakup using image‐processing tools complemented the observations. In addition, computational fluid dynamics simulations were performed to determine the stress history on the droplet trajectories. It was found that droplets on a trajectory close to the wall are more deformed when leaving the disruption unit compared to droplets on the centreline. The deformation of droplets at the edge of the jet increases downstream the disruption unit until it is finally disrupted. The simulation results support the experimental data, as it can be shown that shear and strain stresses on the trajectories close to the wall significantly exceed the stresses on the trajectories on the centreline. For an emulsion with a viscosity ratio greater than 3, droplets on a trajectory close to the wall resulted in smaller droplets and narrower droplet size distribution, while no significant influence was found for smaller viscosity ratios. Lowering the interfacial tension results in a stronger deformation, which was more pronounced for lower viscosity ratios (λ ≈ 3).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".