4.4 Article

The effects of particle shape on inertial focusing

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/09544062231151542

关键词

Inertial focusing; particle shape; immersed boundary; lattice Boltzmann method

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a 2D particle inertial focusing model using the immersed boundary-lattice Boltzmann method (IB-LBM) to investigate the impact of particle shapes on their focusing state. Circular particles were first studied as validation, obtaining consistent focus positions with previous reports. The focusing of circle, rectangle, ellipse, and capsule particles were then examined in detail, revealing significant influences of particle shapes on focusing positions, self-rotation, and running speed. This study provides valuable insights for screening or separating particles with different shapes in microfluidic devices.
This paper proposes a 2D particle inertial focusing model by the immersed boundary-lattice Boltzmann method (IB-LBM), aiming to study the effects of particle shapes on their focusing state. First, as the validation, we investigated the inertial focusing of circular particles and got consistent focus positions with other previous reports. Then, the inertial focusing of the circle, rectangle, ellipse, and capsule particles were studied in detail. The results revealed that the particle shapes significantly influence the focusing positions, self-rotation, and running speed. At a given Reynolds number, the circular particle has a minimum average distance to the pipe center in the focus state, then follows the elliptical, capsular, and rectangular particles. The elliptical particle's self-rotation cycle is in approximately the cubed relation to the long-short axis ratio. Moreover, the rectangle particle runs fastest at the same Reynolds number, followed by capsule, ellipse, and circle particles. Our study and the above results can provide a significant reference for screening or separating particles with different shapes in microfluidic devices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据