MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213240619 · doi:10.1103/physreve.105.025106

Droplet formation of biological non-Newtonian fluid in T-junction generators. II. Model for final droplet volume prediction

2022· article· en· W4213240619 on OpenAlexaff
Merve Marçalı, Xiaoming Chen, Marc G. Aucoin, Carolyn L. Ren

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanicsNeckingDimensionless quantityMaterials scienceNewtonian fluidLiquid bubbleNon-Newtonian fluidVolume of fluid methodVolume (thermodynamics)MicrochannelWork (physics)ThermodynamicsBubbleFlow (mathematics)PhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work represents the second part of a two-part series on the dynamics of droplet formation in a T-junction generator under the squeezing regime when using solutions of red blood cells as the dispersed phase. Solutions containing red blood cells are non-Newtonian; however, these solutions do not behave in the same way as other non-Newtonian fluids currently described in the literature. Hence, available models do not capture nor predict important features useful for the design of T-junction microfluidic systems, including droplet volume. The formation of a red blood cell-containing droplet consists of three stages: a lag stage, a filling stage, and a necking stage, with the lag stage only observed in narrow dispersed phase channel setups. Unlike other shear-thinning fluids, thread elongation into the main channel at the end of the necking stage is not observed for red blood cell solutions. In this work, a model that predicts the final droplet volume of a red blood cell containing droplets in T-junction generators is presented. The model combines a detailed analysis of the geometrical shape of the droplet during the formation process, with force and Laplace pressure balances to obtain the penetration depth (b_{fill}^{*}) and the critical neck thickness (2r_{pinch}^{*}) of the droplet. The performance of the model was validated by comparing the operational parameters (droplet volume, the spacing between the droplet, and the generation frequency) with the experimental data across a range of the dimensionless parameters (flow rate ratios, continuous phase viscosities, and channel geometries).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207