Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34573731›Full record

ReviewEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Interfacial Area Transport Equation for Bubble Coalescence and Breakup: Developments and Comparisons.

Huiting Chen, Shiyu Wei, Weitian Ding, Han Wei, Liang Li, Henrik Saxén, Hongming Long, Yaowei Yu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Huiting ChenState Key Laboratory of Advanced Special Steel, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Advanced Ferrometallurgy, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0811-438X
Shiyu WeiState Key Laboratory of Advanced Special Steel, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Advanced Ferrometallurgy, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China.
Weitian DingState Key Laboratory of Advanced Special Steel, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Advanced Ferrometallurgy, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China.
Han WeiState Key Laboratory of Advanced Special Steel, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Advanced Ferrometallurgy, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China.
Liang LiState Key Laboratory of Vanadium and Titanium Comprehensive Utilization, Pangang Group Research Institute Co. Ltd., Panzhihua 617000, China.
Henrik SaxénThermal and Flow Engineering Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Åbo Akademi University, Biskopsgatan 8, FI-20500 Åbo, Finland.
Hongming LongAnhui Province Key Laboratory of Metallurgical Engineering and Resources Recycling, Anhui University of Technology, Maanshan 243000, China.
Yaowei YuState Key Laboratory of Advanced Special Steel, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Advanced Ferrometallurgy, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China.

Funding

Grant Award Number D17002NSFC No: 51974182The Open Project Program of Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Metallurgical Engineering & Resource Recycling (Anhui University of Technology) No: SKF20-01The Program for Professor of Special Appointment (Eastern Scholar) at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning No. TP2015039The Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to University National 111 Project
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bubble coalescence and breakup play important roles in physical-chemical processes and bubbles are treated in two groups in the interfacial area transport equation (IATE). This paper presents a review of IATE for bubble coalescence and breakup to model five bubble interaction mechanisms: bubble coalescence due to random collision, bubble coalescence due to wake entrainment, bubble breakup due to turbulent impact, bubble breakup due to shearing-off, and bubble breakup due to surface instability. In bubble coalescence, bubble size, velocity and collision frequency are dominant. In bubble breakup, the influence of viscous shear, shearing-off, and surface instability are neglected, and their corresponding theory and modelling are rare in the literature. Furthermore, combining turbulent kinetic energy and inertial force together is the best choice for the bubble breakup criterion. The reviewed one-group constitutive models include the one developed by Wu et al., Ishii and Kim, Hibiki and Ishii, Yao and Morel, and Nguyen et al. To extend the IATE prediction capability beyond bubbly flow, two-group IATE is needed and its performance is strongly dependent on the channel size and geometry. Therefore, constitutive models for two-group IATE in a three-type channel (i.e., narrow confined channel, round pipe and relatively larger pipe) are summarized. Although great progress in extending the IATE beyond churn-turbulent flow to churn-annual flow was made, there are still some issues in their modelling and experiments due to the highly distorted interface measurement. Regarded as the challenges to be addressed in the further study, some limitations of IATE general applicability and the directions for future development are highlighted.

Indexed as

bubble coalescence and breakupbubble interaction mechanismsflow pattern transitioninterfacial area transport equation

Identifiers

PMID34573731
PMCPMC8465106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.