ArticleScientific reports2025
Double emulsion templated monodisperse antibubbles via combined high-shear homogenization and T-junction microfluidics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Antibubbles are unique bubbles (within a bulk liquid) that comprise liquid core(s). This study focused on creating and evaluating antibubbles with multiple cores using double emulsion (DE) templating. The primary emulsion (PE) was made using high-shear homogenization and then passed through a T-junction to form the DE. These DEs were then freeze-dried and rehydrated to form antibubbles. The study examined the effect of PE parameters (homogenization speed (rpm), internal phase ([Formula: see text], %), and interfacial particle concentration ([Formula: see text], %)), second emulsification parameters (flow rate ratio, interfacial particle concentration ([Formula: see text], %), microchannel size, and additional cryoprotectants in continuous phase), and post-emulsification freezing temperature on DE and the antibubble. The best conditions for yielding small-sized DE and the antibubble with maximum reconstitution coefficient (RC) were selected to evaluate the encapsulation efficiency (EE) of calcein in [Formula: see text]. The study found that antibubbles could provide better EE than DEs for storage longer than 7 days. Future studies should focus on scaling up production, improving EE during the DE-to-antibubble transition, and evaluating stability and release dynamics under in-vitro gastrointestinal simulations using human digestive fluids and tissues for more accurate in vivo predictions.
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.