3.9 Article

Examination of a Theoretical Model for Drainage of Foams Prepared from Licorice Root Extract Solution

期刊

COLLOIDS AND INTERFACES
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/colloids7020047

关键词

licorice root extract; theoretical model; free drainage; foam; liquid flow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research discusses a theoretical model for the liquid drainage of foams made from licorice root extract solutions, and validates its effectiveness. By simplifying the governing equation, a relationship between drained liquid volume and effective parameters is obtained. The theoretical model is applied to experimental foam drainage data, and the results show good agreement. The combination of effective parameters allows for a quantification of the drainage rate, and measurable properties can estimate the drainage rate at the beginning of foam decay as a measure of stability.
The root of the licorice plant (Glycyrrhiza glabra) is rich in natural surfactants, called saponins. The beneficial properties of this plant have led to different applications, including its use as a foaming agent. In this research, a theoretical model and its validity are discussed for the liquid drainage of foams made from licorice root extract solutions. After stating the important characteristics in the free drainage of foam, a relationship of the drained liquid volume based on effective parameters was obtained via a simplification of the governing equation. The theoretical model is applied to experimental foam drainage data measured at different concentrations of licorice root extract solutions. A comparison of theoretical and experimental results shows good agreement for the volume of drained liquid as a function of time. The characteristics obtained from the combination of effective parameters allows for a quantification of the drainage rate. In addition, the drainage rate at the beginning of the foam decay process, as a measure of stability, can be estimated using measurable properties.

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

3.9
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