ArticleMicromachines2025
Experimental and Numerical Study of Slug-Flow Velocity Inside Microchannels Through In Situ Optical Monitoring.
Article in Micromachines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Miniaturization and reliable, real-time, non-invasive monitoring are essential for investigating microfluidic processes in Lab-on-a-Chip (LoC) systems. Progress in this field is driven by three complementary approaches: analytical modeling, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, and experimental validation techniques. In this study, we present an on-chip experimental method for estimating the slug-flow velocity in microchannels through in situ optical monitoring. Slug flow involving two immiscible fluids was investigated under both liquid-liquid and gas-liquid conditions via an extensive experimental campaign. The measured velocities were used to determine the slug length and key dimensionless parameters, including the Reynolds number and Capillary number. A comparison with analytical models and CFD simulations revealed significant discrepancies, particularly in gas-liquid flows. These differences are mainly attributed to factors such as gas compressibility, pressure fluctuations, the presence of a liquid film, and leakage flows, all of which substantially affect flow dynamics. Notably, the percentage error in liquid-liquid flows was lower than that in gas-liquid flows, largely due to the incompressibility assumption inherent in the model. The high-frequency monitoring capability of the proposed method enables in situ mapping of evolving multiphase structures, offering valuable insights into slug-flow dynamics and transient phenomena that are often difficult to capture using conventional measurement techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.