4.4 Article

Modeling chemo-hydrodynamic interactions of phoretic particles: A unified framework

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW FLUIDS
Volume 4, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.4.124204

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [714027]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [714027] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phoretic particles exploit local self-generated physico-chemical gradients to achieve self-propulsion at the micron scale. The collective dynamics of a large number of such particles is currently the focus of intense research efforts, both from a physical perspective to understand the precise mechanisms of the interactions and their respective roles, as well as from an experimental point of view to explain the observations of complex dynamics as well as formation of coherent large-scale structures. However, an exact modeling of such multiparticle problems is difficult, and most efforts so far rely on the superposition of far-field approximations for each particle's signature, which are only valid asymptotically in the dilute suspension limit. A systematic and unified analytical framework based on the classical Method of Reflections (MoR) is developed here for both the Laplace and Stokes' problems to obtain the higher-order interactions and the resulting velocities of multiple phoretic particles, up to any order of accuracy in the radius-to-distance ratio s of the particles. Beyond simple pairwise chemical or hydrodynamic interactions, this model allows us to account for the generic chemo-hydrodynamic couplings as well as N-particle interactions (N >= 3). The epsilon(5)-accurate interaction velocities are then explicitly obtained, and the resulting implementation of this MoR model is discussed and validated quantitatively against exact solutions of a few canonical problems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available