A fast mesh-free boundary integral method for two-phase flow with soluble surfactant

Johannes Tausch; Michael R. Booty; Michael Siegel; Samantha G. Evans

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

A fast mesh-free boundary integral method for two-phase flow with soluble surfactant

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A causal fast multipole method cuts the cost of evaluating the surfactant time-history convolution from O(P^2) to O(P log_2^2 P) per surface point, enabling a mesh-free boundary-integral solver for drops with soluble surfactant at large…

desk verdict The causal FMM is a real algorithmic step with strong tests, but the O(P log^2 P) claim rests on an unproven convergence assumption for the tau-only interpolation — referee it with that question in hand. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11282 v1 pith:XBOEZPTK submitted 2025-06-12 physics.flu-dyn cs.NAmath.NA

Samantha G. Evans , Michael Siegel , Johannes Tausch , Michael R. Booty This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.flu-dyncs.NAmath.NA MSC 65R2076D0776M1545E10 PACS 47.11.Hj47.55.Dr

keywords StokesflowsolublesurfactantboundaryintegralmethodcausalfastmultipoleAbel-typePécletnumbertransitionlayermesh-free

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The central claim is that the time-history convolution coupling soluble surfactant in the bulk to a deforming drop interface—the computational bottleneck of the boundary-integral approach—can be evaluated in $O(P\log_2^2 P)$ operations per surface point instead of $O(P^2)$. The paper achieves this with a 'causal' fast multipole method that interpolates the convolution kernel in the time variable only, so that every kernel value used lies in the causally known past. A sympathetic reader would care because this makes the fully coupled moving-interface problem with soluble surfactant tractable at the large Péclet numbers ($10^5$ to $10^7$) of real microfluidic applications, with no numerical mesh in the direction normal to the interface. If correct, the same acceleration extends to a broader class of high-Péclet advection-diffusion problems and to other history-dependent Abel-type convolutions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Abel-type convolution operator of equation (51), with kernel $k(t,\tau)=\pi^{-1/2}\exp[-\psi_1(t)]\,((t-\tau)/(\psi_2(t)-\psi_2(\tau)))^{1/2}$, where $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ satisfy the two ODEs of equation (46) and are advanced by an Adams-Bashforth scheme during time stepping. The causal fast multipole method partitions the triangle $0\le\tau\le t\le T$ into diagonal triangles and off-diagonal squares; on each off-diagonal square it uses Chebyshev interpolation in the $\tau$ variable only (equation (69)), with moments precomputed in an upward pass, so the method never needs kernel values from the future. A generalized Euler-Maclaurin corrected trapezoid rule with singularity subtraction handles the $1/\sqrt{t-\tau}$ singularity and the small-time singular behavior of $g(\tau)$.

What would settle it

Run the synthetic examples E0–E4 of Appendix A with $q$ at the values stated there, double $P$ beyond $5120$, and compare the fast and direct errors: if the fast error stops following the direct $O(h^{3/2})$ convergence, or if matching the first three significant digits requires $q$ to grow faster than $\log_2 P$, then the claimed $O(P\log_2^2 P)$ cost does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the infinite bulk Péclet number limit, the paper builds on the asymptotic reduction of the transition-layer dynamics in which the bulk surfactant concentration is represented by a Green's function and the flux entering the surface conservation law is the Abel-type convolution $Kg(t)=\int_0^t (t-\tau)^{-1/2} k(t,\tau) g(\tau)\,d\tau$. The kernel $k$ is smooth away from the diagonal $t=\tau$ but is not known in advance, because it is built from interface stretching data that is only revealed as the interface evolves. The paper's discovery is that the fast multipole partition of the $(t,\tau)$ triangle can still be made causal: instead of interpolating the kernel on each off-diagonal square in both variables, interpolate only in $\tau$, so that every node pair used in the approximation lies in the known region $\tau\le t$. With the interpolation order $q$ chosen as $O(\log_2 P)$, the accelerated evaluation matches direct quadrature at the stated accuracy while reducing the cost from $O(P^2)$ to $O(P\log_2^2 P)$ per surface grid point; coupling this to the boundary integral fluid solver yields a mesh-free method that reproduces the earlier mesh-based hybrid method on drop shape, surface surfactant concentration, exchange flux, and bulk concentration.

Load-bearing premise

The whole complexity gain rests on the assumption that one-sided Chebyshev interpolation of the kernel in the $\tau$ variable, with the number of interpolation nodes growing only like $\log_2 P$, converges fast enough that the accelerated convolution is as accurate as the direct quadrature; the paper states this can be shown but does not supply the error estimate for this causal, one-sided modification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Long-time simulations at application-scale Péclet numbers become affordable: the per-surface-point time-history cost is O(P log_2^2 P), and in the runs reported the fast mesh-free method is 5–10 times faster than the mesh-based method with 256–1024 normal-direction mesh points.
The transition layer no longer needs an artificial outer truncation boundary, and the bulk surfactant concentration is recovered from the convolution in post-processing, so the method is mesh-free in the direction normal to the interface.
The coupled solver is spectrally accurate in space and O(h^{3/2}) accurate in time, matching the earlier mesh-based method on drop profiles, interfacial surfactant concentration, exchange flux, and bulk concentration.
The causal fast multipole method generalizes to other high-Péclet advection-diffusion problems with surface-activity feedback, and to similar Abel-type convolutions arising elsewhere, such as the nonequilibrium Dyson equation.
Adaptive refinement of interface points is supported through NUFFT-based interpolation of the time history, allowing long simulations of strongly deformed drop shapes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural stress test beyond the paper's tables is to push P well past 5120 with q held at the stated O(log_2 P) scale; if one-sided Chebyshev interpolation degrades on kernels with sharp transients in tau, the asymptotic claim would need a refined error bound.
The same causal one-sided interpolation should accelerate any history-dependent Volterra or Abel convolution whose kernel is discovered during time stepping, so the nonequilibrium Dyson equation mentioned in the conclusion is a direct target for a similar complexity reduction.
Since the paper computes spatial convolutions by a direct method, the full O(N_s P log_2^2 P) complexity would only be realized by combining the causal time-convolution FMM with a spatial FMM for the boundary integrals; measuring wall-clock time for that combination is a concrete next step.
If the method is pushed to three dimensions, the per-surface-point time-history convolution remains the bottleneck and the causal interpolation structure carries over, but the off-diagonal partition would need to be combined with the spatial FMM in a genuinely two-level scheme.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the causal FMM is a genuine algorithmic step and the tests are convincing. Send it to review, but put the convergence of the tau-only interpolation (69) on the referee's checklist.

The genuinely new piece is (69): interpolating the kernel only in tau, so that kernel values are defined as time-stepping proceeds, is a real modification of the FMM-for-Volterra methods in [28, 29], which assume the kernel is known on the whole triangle a priori. The ODE reformulation (46)-(48) is clean and makes the kernel analytically explicit. The synthetic benchmark in Appendix A is the strongest part: five exact test cases, fast and direct errors matching to three significant digits with q growing from 2 to 6 as P goes from 40 to 5120, and operation counts consistent with O(P log^2 P) versus O(P^2). Table 1 gives consistent O(h^{3/2}) rates, and the comparison with the mesh-based solver in Section 5.2 is genuine agreement, not just qualitative. The authors are also honest: the introduction discloses that spatial convolutions are still direct in the implementation, so the asymptotic claim is per surface point, and the Remark after (67) owns the O(h^{3/2}) error from omitting the phi_3 term.

Soft spots, in proportion. The complexity claim rests on the assertion that Chebyshev interpolation in tau converges fast enough that q = O(log P) preserves accuracy. The citation to [29] does not cover the causal setting: it analyzes interpolation of a kernel known on the whole triangle, while here the kernel values k(t_i, omega_l^J) are reconstructed from the Adams-Bashforth interpolant for psi_1, psi_2. That is a second, unanalyzed error source. Appendix A supports the claim for a fixed smooth psi_0, but nothing tests the harder regime, such as the near-self-intersection C-shape of Section 6.2, where the tau-smoothness of the kernel can degrade. I read this as a genuine proof gap, not evidence of a wrong result. Two smaller items: no code or data is released, and the coupled validation is against the same group's earlier solver, so the independence of the physical-model check is partial.

Bottom line: this is a useful, honest paper for the fast time-integral methods community and for surfactant-drop simulations. It deserves a serious referee. Ask either for an error analysis of (69) or for a numerical experiment with a non-smooth psi_0, and encourage code release. I would cite it for the causal FMM idea.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a boundary integral method for two-phase Stokes flow with soluble surfactant in the infinite-Péclet-number limit. The novel ingredient is a causal variant of the fast multipole method that evaluates an Abel-type time convolution (51) in O(P log_2^2 P) operations per interface point instead of O(P^2). The method is shown to have O(h^{3/2}) accuracy in time and is validated against a mesh-based method from the same group on drop deformation in shear and strain flows, along with synthetic convolution tests in Appendix A.

Significance. If the complexity and convergence claims hold, this is a substantial algorithmic contribution. It removes the need for a spatial mesh in the bulk boundary layer, handles the nonstandard feature that the convolution kernel is only revealed during time stepping, and opens the door to long-time simulations of surfactant-laden drops at physical Péclet numbers. The paper includes careful numerical experiments, order-of-accuracy tables, and a synthetic test with known beta-function values, which provide credible evidence that the method works as implemented. The causal one-sided interpolation idea is likely to be of broader interest for Volterra and Abel integral operators with history-dependent kernels.

major comments (3)

[§4.1, Eqs. (69)–(71) and complexity paragraph] The central complexity claim that choosing the Chebyshev interpolation order q = O(log_2 P) preserves the O(h^{3/2}) accuracy is asserted rather than proved. The reference [29] analyzes two-sided interpolation of a kernel known a priori on the whole triangle Delta_T; the present causal, tau-only interpolation is new, and the kernel values are reconstructed online from the ODE solution for psi1 and psi2. The numerical evidence in Appendix A supports the claim for P up to 5120 with q <= 6, but it does not establish the asymptotic statement. Since the O(P log_2^2 P) complexity depends directly on q growing only logarithmically, this is a load-bearing gap. Please provide an error estimate with explicit regularity assumptions on psi0, or clearly state the complexity result under those assumptions and temper the claim accordingly.
[§4.1, Eqs. (59), (60), (66)] The singularity-subtraction coefficients are inconsistent with the product expansion. Multiplying the expansion (64) by the small-time expansion (53) gives, for the constant term, k0(t) A1 + k1(t) A0, not A1, and for the sqrt(tau) term, k0(t) A2 + k1(t) A1 + k2(t) A0, not A0 k1 + A2 k0. In addition, the prefactor exp(-psi1(t))/sqrt(pi) appearing in the definition of phi in (63) does not appear in the expressions for phi0, phi1, phi2 in (66). As written, the corrected trapezoidal rule (60) will not deliver the stated O(h^{3/2}) accuracy. The numerical results in Table 1 and Figures 5–6 suggest that the implementation is correct, but the manuscript needs to be corrected or the definitions of the A_i and phi_i clarified so that the algorithm is reproducible.
[§4.1, paragraph on Adams–Bashforth interpolation] The statement that p=2 in the Adams–Bashforth interpolation (76) is sufficient because the accuracy is limited by the number of terms in (53) is plausible but not fully justified: the interpolation error of psi1 and psi2 at Chebyshev nodes should be compared with the O(h^{3/2}) quadrature error, and the dependence of the kernel approximation error on the interpolation order p and the step size h is not shown. Please add a short error estimate or a numerical experiment demonstrating that the observed convergence rate is indeed unaffected by the Adams–Bashforth reconstruction.

minor comments (5)

[§4.1, Eq. (59)] The hat notation for the subtracted function is missing, and the term 'phi0(t) sqrt(tau)' should almost certainly be 'phi0(t)/sqrt(tau)' to match the singularity expansion; please fix the typography.
[§4.1, Remark after Eq. (67)] The text says the implemented formula omits the s_n^{(3)} phi_3(t) term, yet Eq. (60) displays this term. Please state explicitly that the implementation uses (60) without the s_n^{(3)}phi_3 term, or rewrite (60) to reflect the implemented formula.
[§5.3, Figure 8] The wall-clock comparison appears to measure only the computation of the bulk surfactant exchange term, not the full boundary-integral time step. Please state this limitation in the text or caption so that the complexity claim is not overinterpreted.
[§4.1, 'Complexity' paragraph] The sentence 'Since Chebyshev interpolation for smooth functions is exponentially convergent, it can be shown...' is too terse for a central algorithmic claim. Either move the proof to an appendix or state the needed regularity of psi0 and provide a reference that actually covers the one-sided causal interpolation.
[§2.2 and §4.2] The paper states that the method is spectrally accurate in space, but no spatial refinement study is reported; the comparison with the mesh-based method is convincing but a direct spatial convergence test would make the claim precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convolution accelerator is tested against exact synthetic data and the coupled solver against an independently benchmarked mesh-based method.

full rationale

The paper's central new claim is the causal FMM evaluation of the Abel convolution (51), and this is grounded independently in Appendix A, where g(τ)=ψ_2'(τ)ψ_2^α(τ) is chosen so that K g(t) equals the closed-form Euler beta function expression (88). The fast and direct methods are compared for P=40..5120 and agree to three significant digits, so the acceleration is checked against an exact synthetic solution rather than fitted to it. The full two-phase solver is validated by comparison with the mesh-based method of [23], and [23] was itself validated in [9] against a traditional adaptive interface-fitted finite-difference method that avoids the transition-layer reduction; hence the benchmark chain does not reduce to the present paper's own assumptions. The physical transition-layer model is taken from prior work [9], [23] as a stated modeling input, not derived again here, so citing it is normal scientific practice. The one legitimate concern is that the complexity claim O(P log_2^2 P) rests on the assertion in Section 4.1 that q=O(log_2 P) 'can be shown' to preserve the convergence rate, with [29] cited for 'more details of the error analysis'; because Eq. (69) interpolates only in τ and is new, [29]'s analysis of the two-sided interpolation (68) does not automatically cover it. However, this is an unproved convergence assumption, i.e., a correctness or completeness gap, not an equivalence of the result to its inputs by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no definition depends on the target quantity, and no alternative is excluded by a self-citation. Accordingly the derivation chain is self-contained for circularity purposes.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on (i) the prior asymptotic transition-layer model and Green's function representation from the same group, (ii) an unproven smoothness/interpolation assumption for the new causal FMM, and (iii) several hand-chosen numerical parameters (q, delta). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Chebyshev interpolation order q = 2 to 6 depending on P (chosen so q = O(log_2 P))
In (69), q controls the number of Chebyshev nodes in the tau-only degenerate expansion; the complexity O(P log^2_2 P) relies on q growing logarithmically, and the paper chooses q per run so that fast and direct errors match to three digits (Tables 2, 3). This is a manual method parameter, not fitted to physics.
Post-processing split delta = 0.01
Used in (77)-(78) to split the bulk concentration integral; introduces O(delta) error in the plotted C field, not in the exchange term. Chosen by hand.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The transition-layer equation (16) with coefficients from surface data (19) is the exact Pe->infinity limit of the bulk advection-diffusion equation; the outer concentration is C=1.
Section 2.1, from [9]; the entire method inherits this asymptotic reduction, so 'accurate solution' refers to this reduced model.
domain assumption Infinite-Biot (diffusion-controlled) limit replaces the flux boundary condition by the Dirichlet condition (10).
Section 2, equation (10), justified for drops of size ~0.1mm or larger; an assumption about the physical regime.
domain assumption The Green's function representation (38)/(41) for the transition-layer concentration, derived in [23], is correct.
Equations (38)-(41), taken from [23]; the paper's method is built on this convolution representation.
ad hoc to paper The tau-only Chebyshev interpolation (69) converges fast enough with q=O(log_2 P) to match direct evaluation.
Section 4.1, equations (69)-(71); stated without proof, attributed heuristically to smoothness and [29].
ad hoc to paper Adams-Bashforth interpolation (76) with p=2 provides psi1, psi2 at Chebyshev nodes accurately enough not to degrade the O(h^{3/2}) quadrature order.
Section 4.1, 'Solution of the ODE'; the paper asserts p=2 suffices because the convolution accuracy is limited by (53), but no error bound is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A fast mesh-free boundary integral method for two-phase flow with soluble surfactant." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBOEZPTK

@misc{pith2026250611282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A fast mesh-free boundary integral method for two-phase flow with soluble surfactant},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBOEZPTK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11282}
}

abstract

We present an accurate and efficient boundary integral (BI) method for simulating the deformation of drops and bubbles in Stokes flow with soluble surfactant. Soluble surfactant advects and diffuses in bulk fluids while adsorbing and desorbing at interfaces. Since the fluid velocity is coupled to the surfactant concentration, the advection-diffusion equation governing the bulk surfactant concentration $C$ is nonlinear, precluding the Green's function formulation necessary for a BI method. However, in the physically representative large P\'eclet number limit, an analytical reduction of the surfactant dynamics permits a Green's function formulation for $C$ as an Abel-type time-convolution integral at each Lagrangian interface point. A challenge in developing a practical numerical method based on this formulation is the fast evaluation of the time convolution, since the kernel depends on the time history of quantities at the interface, which is only found during the time-stepping process. To address this, we develop a novel, causal version of the Fast Multipole Method that reduces the computational cost from $O(P^2)$ for direct evaluation of the time convolution to $O(P \log_2^2 P)$ per surface grid point, where $P$ is the number of time steps. In the bulk phase, the resulting method is mesh-free and provides an accurate solution to the fully coupled moving interface problem with soluble surfactant. The approach extends naturally to a broader class of advection-diffusion problems in the high P\'eclet number regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11282 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The 2D geometry: a drop of viscosity λµ is surrounded by a fluid of viscosity µ. Shown are the unit outward normal vector n, unit tangent vector s, and the angle θ measured counterclockwise positive from the positive x-axis to s. We consider an isolated fluid drop immersed in an infinite exterior fluid and deformed by an imposed flow. Let Ω denote the region exterior to the drop and Ω i the region interior to the dr… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Partition of triangle ∆T for the fast evaluation of the convolution, showing two levels. The kernel is known only in the subset ∆t in which τ ≤ t, shown bounded on the right by the thick blue line. In the n-th time step the evaluation of Kg(tn) contains an integral over 0 ≤ τ ≤ t, which is indicated by the blue line in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** b shows accuracy data for the area of the drop, which is a conserved quantity. This is computed using a two-point variant of (81), since the exact value of the area is known. The order of accuracy for this integrated quantity is found to be p = 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (13 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of mesh-based and fast mesh-free methods for a drop stretched in a shear flow. Data is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) Comparison of the bulk-interface surfactant exchange term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (a) Comparison of the interfacial surfactant concentration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of the bulk surfactant concentration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Wall-clock time comparison for computing the bulk-surfactant exchange term versus number of time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Deformation of an initial polar rose shape given by equation (83) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Bulk surfactant concentration corresponding to the simulations in Figure 9 at time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Deformation of an initial polar rose shape given by equation (83) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Bulk surfactant concentration for the simulations of Figure 11 at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Deformation of a C-shaped drop in (a) a shear flow, and (b) a strain flow. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Bulk concentration of surfactant for the simulations of Figure 13 at time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Relaxation of a Swiss-roll interface under surface tension (first phase), showing the evolution of bulk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Surface surfactant concentration Γ versus α from time t = 81.92 to t = 819.2 (second phase) with ∆tp = 81.92 and surface tension σ superimposed. There is a slow decrease of Γ toward an equilibrium value during this phase. 7. Conclusion We have developed a fast mesh-fr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[29]

J. Tausch, Fast Nyström methods for parabolic boundary integral equations, in: Fast Boundary Element Methods in Engineering and Industrial Applications, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, 2012, pp. 185–219

work page 2012
[1]

S. L. Anna, Droplets and bubbles in microfluidic devices, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 48 (1) (2016) 285–309

work page 2016
[2]

Baret, Surfactants in droplet-based microfluidics, Lab Chip 12 (3) (2012) 422–433

J.-C. Baret, Surfactants in droplet-based microfluidics, Lab Chip 12 (3) (2012) 422–433

work page 2012
[3]

Edwards, H

D. Edwards, H. Brenner, D. Wasan, Interfacial transport processes and rheology, Elsevier, 2013

work page 2013
[4]

Manikantan, T

H. Manikantan, T. Squires, Surfactant dynamics: hidden variables controlling fluid flows, J. Fluid Mech. 892 (2020) P1

work page 2020
[5]

Pozrikidis, Boundary integral and singularity methods for linearized viscous flow, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1992

C. Pozrikidis, Boundary integral and singularity methods for linearized viscous flow, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1992

work page 1992
[6]

Chang, E

C.-H. Chang, E. I. Franses, Adsorption dynamics of surfactants at the air/water interface: a critical review of mathematical models, data, and mechanisms, Colloid Surface A 100 (1995) 1–45

work page 1995
[7]

Moyle, L

T. Moyle, L. Walker, S. Anna, Predicting conditions for microscale surfactant mediated tipstreaming, Phys. Fluids 24 (8) (2012) 082110

work page 2012

Show all 45 references

[8]

Palaparthi, D

R. Palaparthi, D. T. Papageorgiou, C. Maldarelli, Theory and experiments on the stagnant cap regime in the motion of spherical surfactant-laden bubbles, J. Fluid Mech. 559 (2006) 1–44

2006
[9]

M. R. Booty, M. Siegel, A hybrid numerical method for interfacial fluid flow with soluble surfactant, J. Comput. Phys. 229 (10) (2010) 3864–3883

2010
[10]

Muradoglu, G

M. Muradoglu, G. Tryggvason, A front-tracking method for computation of interfacial flows with soluble surfactants, J. Comput. Phys. 227 (4) (2008) 2238–2262

2008
[11]

Khatri, A.-K

S. Khatri, A.-K. Tornberg, An embedded boundary method for soluble surfactants with interface tracking for two-phase flows, J. Comput. Phys. 256 (2014) 768–790

2014
[12]

Chen, M.-C

K.-Y. Chen, M.-C. Lai, A conservative scheme for solving coupled surface-bulk convection- diffusion equations with an application to interfacial flows with soluble surfactant, J. Com- put. Phys. 257 (2014) 1–18

2014
[13]

Hu, M.-C

W.-F. Hu, M.-C. Lai, C. Misbah, A coupled immersed boundary and immersed interface method for interfacial flows with soluble surfactant, Comput. Fluids 168 (2018) 201–215

2018
[14]

Y. Liao, J. B. McLaughlin, Bubble motion in aqueous surfactant solutions, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 224 (2000) 297–310

2000
[15]

Milliken, L

W. Milliken, L. Leal, The influence of surfactant on the deformation and breakup of a viscous drop: The effect of surfactant solubility, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 166 (2) (1994) 275–285

1994
[16]

Teigen, P

K. Teigen, P. Song, J. Lowengrub, A. Voigt., A diffuse-interface method for two-phase flows with soluble surfactants, J. Comput. Phys. 230 (2011) 375–393

2011
[17]

J.-J. Xu, W. Shi, M.-C. Lai, A level-set method for two-phase flows with soluble surfactant, J. Comput. Phys. 353 (2018) 336–355. 33

2018
[18]

J.-J. Xu, Y. Huang, M.-C. Lai, Z. Li, A coupled immersed interface and level set method for three-dimensional interfacial flows with insoluble surfactant, Commun. Comput. Phys. 15 (2) (2014) 451–469

2014
[19]

Zhang, D

J. Zhang, D. Eckmann, P. Ayyaswamy, A front tracking method for a deformable intravas- cular bubble in a tube with soluble surfactant transport, J. Comput. Phys. 214 (2006) 366–396

2006
[20]

R. G. M. van der Sman, S. van der Graaf, Diffuse interface model of surfactant adsorption onto flat and droplet interfaces, Rheol. acta 46 (1) (2006) 3–11

2006
[21]

F. Jin, N. R. Gupta, K. J. Stebe, The detachment of a viscous drop in a viscous solution in the presence of a soluble surfactant, Phys. Fluids 18 (2) (2006) 022103

2006
[22]

Y. Wang, D. T. Papageorgiou, C. Maldarelli, Increased mobility of a surfactant-retarded bubble at high bulk concentrations, J. Fluid Mech. 390 (1999) 251–270

1999
[23]

K. Xu, M. R. Booty, M. Siegel, Analytical and computational methods for two-phase flow with soluble surfactant, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 73 (1) (2013) 523–548

2013
[24]

Q. Wang, M. Siegel, M. R. Booty, Numerical simulation of drop and bubble dynamics with soluble surfactant, Phys. Fluids 26 (5) (2014) 052102

2014
[25]

Wrobel, M

J. Wrobel, M. Booty, M. Siegel, Q. Wang, Simulation of surfactant-mediated tipstreaming in a flow-focusing geometry, Phys. Rev. Fluids 3 (11) (2018) 114003

2018
[26]

Atwater, Studies of two-phase flow with soluble surfactant, Ph.D

R. Atwater, Studies of two-phase flow with soluble surfactant, Ph.D. thesis, New Jersey Institute of Technology (2020)

2020
[27]

S. L. Anna, H. C. Mayer, Microscale tipstreaming in a microfluidic flow focusing device, Phys. Fluids 18 (12) (2006) 121512

2006
[28]

Tausch, A fast method for solving the heat equation by layer potentials, J

J. Tausch, A fast method for solving the heat equation by layer potentials, J. Comput. Phys. 224 (2) (2007) 956–969

2007
[30]

H. Wong, D. Rumschitzki, C. Maldarelli, On the surfactant mass balance at a deforming fluid interface, Phys. Fluids 8 (11) (1996) 3203–3204

1996
[31]

T.Hou, J.Lowengrub, M.Shelley, Removingthestiffnessfrominterfacialflowswithsurface tension, J. Comput. Phys. 114 (2) (1994) 312–338

1994
[32]

M. C. A. Kropinski, An efficient numerical method for studying interfacial motion in two- dimensional creeping flows, J. Comput. Phys. 171 (2) (2001) 479–508

2001
[33]

Greengard, M

L. Greengard, M. C. Kropinski, A. Mayo, Integral equation methods for Stokes flow and isotropic elasticity in the plane, J. Comput. Phys. 125 (2) (1996) 403–414

1996
[34]

S. G. Mikhlin, Integral equations: and their applications to certain problems in mechanics, mathematical physics and technology, Elsevier, 2014

2014
[35]

A. I. Van de Vooren, A numerical investigation of the rolling-up of vortex sheets, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 373 (1752) (1980) 67–91. 34

1980
[36]

Xu, Computational methods for two-phase flow with soluble surfactant, Ph.D

K. Xu, Computational methods for two-phase flow with soluble surfactant, Ph.D. thesis, New Jersey Institute of Technology (2010)

2010
[37]

Evans, A fast mesh-free boundary integral method for two phase flow with soluble surfactant and a study of electroconvective flow, Ph.D

S. Evans, A fast mesh-free boundary integral method for two phase flow with soluble surfactant and a study of electroconvective flow, Ph.D. thesis, New Jersey Institute of Technology (2024)

2024
[38]

Navot, An extension of the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula to functions with a branch singularity, J

I. Navot, An extension of the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula to functions with a branch singularity, J. Math. Phys. 40 (1-4) (1961) 271–276

1961
[39]

Integral Equ

J.Tausch, ThegeneralizedEuler-MaclaurinformulaforthenumericalsolutionofAbel-type integral equations, J. Integral Equ. Appl. (2010) 115–140

2010
[40]

Higley, M

M. Higley, M. Siegel, M. R. Booty, Semi-analytical solutions for two-dimensional elastic capsules in Stokes flow, Proc. R. Soc. A. 468 (2146) (2012) 2915–2938

2012
[41]

Ojala, A.-K.Tornberg, An accurateintegralequation method forsimulating multi-phase Stokes flow, J

R. Ojala, A.-K.Tornberg, An accurateintegralequation method forsimulating multi-phase Stokes flow, J. Comput. Phys. 298 (2015) 145–160

2015
[42]

Pålsson, M

S. Pålsson, M. Siegel, A.-K. Tornberg, Simulation and validation of surfactant-laden drops in two-dimensional Stokes flow, J. Comput. Phys. 386 (2019) 218–247

2019
[43]

Yariv, S

E. Yariv, S. Michelin, Phoretic self-propulsion at large Péclet numbers, J. Fluid Mech. 768 (2015) R1

2015
[44]

W. A. Braff, C. R. Buie, M. Z. Bazant, Boundary layer analysis of membraneless electro- chemical cells, J. Electrochem. Soc. 160 (11) (2013) A2056

2013
[45]

J. Kaye, D. Golez, Low rank compression in the numerical solution of the nonequilibrium Dyson equation, SciPost Phys. 10 (4) (2021) 091. 35

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [29]

J. Tausch, Fast Nyström methods for parabolic boundary integral equations, in: Fast Boundary Element Methods in Engineering and Industrial Applications, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, 2012, pp. 185–219

work page 2012

[2] [1]

S. L. Anna, Droplets and bubbles in microfluidic devices, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 48 (1) (2016) 285–309

work page 2016

[3] [2]

Baret, Surfactants in droplet-based microfluidics, Lab Chip 12 (3) (2012) 422–433

J.-C. Baret, Surfactants in droplet-based microfluidics, Lab Chip 12 (3) (2012) 422–433

work page 2012

[4] [3]

Edwards, H

D. Edwards, H. Brenner, D. Wasan, Interfacial transport processes and rheology, Elsevier, 2013

work page 2013

[5] [4]

Manikantan, T

H. Manikantan, T. Squires, Surfactant dynamics: hidden variables controlling fluid flows, J. Fluid Mech. 892 (2020) P1

work page 2020

[6] [5]

Pozrikidis, Boundary integral and singularity methods for linearized viscous flow, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1992

C. Pozrikidis, Boundary integral and singularity methods for linearized viscous flow, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1992

work page 1992

[7] [6]

Chang, E

C.-H. Chang, E. I. Franses, Adsorption dynamics of surfactants at the air/water interface: a critical review of mathematical models, data, and mechanisms, Colloid Surface A 100 (1995) 1–45

work page 1995

[8] [7]

Moyle, L

T. Moyle, L. Walker, S. Anna, Predicting conditions for microscale surfactant mediated tipstreaming, Phys. Fluids 24 (8) (2012) 082110

work page 2012