MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316658078 · doi:10.1080/00986445.2023.2164853

Liquid–liquid dispersion system in a moving baffle OBC: a numerical and theoretical study

2023· article· en· W4316658078 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Mortazavi, Leila Pakzad

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Engineering Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaffleAmplitudeDispersion (optics)Liquid liquidMechanicsRange (aeronautics)Sauter mean diameterSuspension (topology)Factorial experimentMaterials scienceVolumetric flow rateFlow (mathematics)SimulationChromatographyChemistryThermodynamicsMathematicsOpticsPhysicsComposite materialComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid-liquid dispersion is prevalent in the chemical industries to create a larger interface between the phases that can intensify the chemical processes, such as liquid extractions and heterogeneous reactions. Oscillatory baffled columns (OBCs) have emerged as alternatives to conventional commercial columns in which external components apply an oscillating flow. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approach coupled with the factorial design of the experiment method was employed to study the effect of main geometrical and operational factors, including free baffle area (known as α), amplitude, and frequency along with their interactions on minimum droplet diameter (dmin), maximum droplet diameter (dmax), and Sauter mean diameter (d32). The ANOVA p-values showed that the interaction between frequency and all the other main factors was insignificant for all responses. In addition, α did not have a significant impact on the dmax in the system, and amplitude had the most substantial impact on all the responses (i.e., dmin, dmax, and d32) among all the factors. It was found that the higher amplitude, higher frequency, and smaller α resulted in smaller d32 which can provide higher interfacial area, higher mass transfer, and higher reaction rate for the processes such as suspension polymerization and liquid-liquid extractions. In addition, the larger α provided a narrower range of droplets (dmax−dmin), which is of significance for polymerization processes. Mathematical models were also developed for dmin, dmax, and d32 using regression analysis with a reasonable level of accuracy. For the first time, semi-theoretical models were proposed for dmin and dmax in an OBC by combining the models existing in the literature for dmin and dmax and a quasi-steady-state model for energy dissipation rate in an OBC. The proposed models can be used to predict the parameters mentioned above by having geometrical and operational parameters, which help design suitable OBCs for a desired liquid-liquid dispersion system. A visual assessment of the d32 and the dispersed phase volume fraction was also accomplished, showing larger droplets tended to be closer to the wall. Besides, a very uniform dispersed phase volume fraction throughout the OBC indicated the suitability of the column for such processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Engineering CommunicationsSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207