Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Bubble bursting in a sessile droplet

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bubble bursting inside a sessile droplet produces Worthington jets at Laplace numbers below the infinite-bath threshold, down to La≈300, so water bubbles as small as ~4 µm can emit aerosol drops.

desk verdict Sessile-droplet confinement is a real new mechanism for lowering the bubble-bursting emission threshold, well supported in the inviscid regime, but the headline La<300 claim rests on possibly viscoelastic liquids and needs a Newtonian DNS at that La before it's solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22207 v1 pith:SVLYFATW submitted 2026-07-24 physics.flu-dyn

U. J. Gutiérrez-Hernández , B. Muñoz-Sánchez , A. Agúndez-Cruz , J. M. Montanero , D. Fernández Rivas , M. G. Cabezas This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords bubbleburstingsessiledropletWorthingtonjetjet-dropemissionLaplacenumbercapillarypressureconfinementenergyfocusing
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 paper tries to establish that trapping a bubble inside a small sessile droplet—a droplet pinned to a solid surface—changes bubble bursting enough to produce liquid jets in conditions where an open liquid bath cannot. In the low-viscosity regime, confinement yields thinner and faster jets. In the high-viscosity regime, it lowers the minimum Laplace number for jet-droplet emission from about 540 in an infinite bath to below 300, implying that water bubbles with radii as small as roughly 4 µm could eject jet droplets from sessile drops. The authors identify the mechanism as an extra pressure gradient from the droplet's curved interface, which pushes liquid toward the collapsing cavity bottom, accelerates the free-surface reversal, and focuses more energy into the jet. If correct, this makes droplet curvature and confinement a control lever for aerosol emission from bursting bubbles.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the capillary pressure of the sessile droplet's curved interface. Because the droplet surface is curved, the hydrostatic pressure in the liquid is raised by an amount at least comparable to the bubble capillary pressure σ/Rb; this pressure gradient drives liquid toward the bottom of the collapsing bubble cavity, compresses the cavity bottom, and accelerates the free-surface reversal that forms the Worthington jet (the liquid column ejected when the cavity collapses). The paper parameterizes the geometry by the dimensionless apex height H/Rb and contact-line radius RD/Rb, and shows that decreasing H/Rb strengthens the effect, reducing the first-droplet radius, increas

What would settle it

Repeat the low-Laplace-number emission experiments with a well-characterized Newtonian liquid at matched Laplace numbers (verified by high-frequency rheometry or capillary-breakup measurements) and check whether jet-drop emission still occurs for La<540 in a sessile droplet; if emission disappears, the lowered threshold is rheological, not geometric. A complementary test is a Newtonian DNS at La≈300 with a resolved ruptured-film initial condition: if no emission is obtained for any physically plausible rim radius, the geometric mechanism alone is insufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the paper's core is the discovery that geometric confinement in a sessile droplet enhances the energy focusing of a bursting bubble. The first-emitted droplet in the inviscid regime is up to a factor of about three smaller in radius and more than twice as fast as the one produced by the same bubble in an infinite liquid bath. In the viscous regime, liquid is ejected for Laplace numbers below approximately 300, a threshold the paper places well under the infinite-bath minimum of La≈540; for water this implies jet-forming bubbles can be as small as roughly 4 μm in radius, compared with about 7.5 μm in an open bath. The paper attributes the effect to the capillary pressure of the sessile dro

Load-bearing premise

The central claim that confinement lowers the emission threshold to La≈300 rests on the assumption that the low-Laplace-number ejections are governed by Newtonian fluid physics; the paper itself cautions that 5 cSt silicone oil and aqueous sucrose solutions may behave viscoelastically on the microsecond pinch-off timescale, and it shows a jet that freezes after emission, a hallmark of extensional thickening.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The threshold Laplace number for jet-drop emission is not a fixed property of the liquid; it depends on the confining droplet's curvature and size, so a liquid that cannot emit from an open bath can emit from a sessile droplet at the same viscosity.
  • Sub-10-micron water bubbles, previously regarded as too small to produce jet aerosols from a flat surface, may become aerosol sources when they burst inside droplets on solid surfaces.
  • In the inviscid regime, confinement shrinks the first-emitted droplet by a factor of roughly three and boosts its velocity by more than a factor of two, shifting aerosol size distributions toward smaller and faster drops.
  • In a viscous case, the capillary pressure gradient raises the cavity-bottom velocity by about 20%—enough to cross the droplet-detachment threshold if confinement is sufficient.
  • Surfaces that pin contact lines and produce strongly curved droplets could be engineered to promote or suppress aerosol emission depending on the application.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the threshold lowering is genuinely Newtonian, it should be reproducible in a strictly Newtonian high-viscosity liquid (for example, a purified glycerol-water mixture) at matched Laplace numbers; a null result would indicate rheology rather than geometry is responsible.
  • The primary numerical support for a lowered threshold comes from a single DNS at La=468 with an idealized post-rupture initial condition and a hand-chosen rim radius (0.01–0.03 Rb); a sweep of Laplace numbers across 300–540 and a rim-radius sensitivity study would test whether the lowered threshold is robust.
  • The paper's own observation that a sucrose-solution jet 'freezes' after first emission—attributed to extensional thickening—raises the possibility that some of the low-Laplace-number ejections are viscoelastic rather than Newtonian; a direct microsecond-timescale rheology test would separate the two.
  • The near-linear dependence of droplet-radius reduction on apex curvature κ0Rb could be developed into a predictive design rule for aerosol control, relating emission threshold to droplet height and contact-line radius.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports an experimental and numerical study of the bursting of a bubble at the apex of a sessile droplet with a pinned contact line. Experiments with water, silicone oil, sucrose solutions, and octanol show that decreasing the droplet height (increasing confinement) makes the first emitted Worthington-jet droplet smaller and faster at high Laplace number, and allows droplet emission for Laplace numbers below the infinite-bath threshold. Axisymmetric Basilisk DNS reproduce the high-La experiments and, for a viscous case at La=468, show emission where an infinite bath does not emit. The authors attribute the effect to an additional pressure gradient from the droplet curvature that drives liquid into the collapsing cavity. The paper concludes that a sessile droplet can emit jet droplets for La ≲ 300, corresponding to water bubbles smaller than about 4 µm.

Significance. If the claimed threshold lowering is real for Newtonian liquids, it identifies a new control parameter for bubble-bursting aerosol production and would lower the minimum bubble size for water jet drops from ~7.5 µm to ~4 µm. The high-La confinement effect (smaller/faster jets) is well supported by experiments and DNS, and the La=468 DNS provides a plausible mechanism. However, the low-La headline claim is not yet convincingly established because the supporting experiments use liquids that may be viscoelastic on the pinch-off timescale, and the DNS do not reach the claimed La≈300. The paper would be a significant contribution if this gap is closed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.B and Sec. VII] The central quantitative claim (emission for La ≲ 300, and inference of a water bubble radius < 4 µm) is not supported by Newtonian data. The sub-540 emission points in Fig. 12 come from 5 cSt silicone oil, sucrose solutions, and octanol. As the paper itself states in Sec. V.B, these liquids can exhibit viscoelastic behavior on the few-microsecond emission timescale; Fig. 15 shows a jet that freezes, attributed to extensional thickening. This is load-bearing: if these emissions are rheological, the Newtonian threshold may not be lower than 540. The only Newtonian counterweight is the DNS at La=468 (Figs. 23–24), which is below 540 but well above 300. Please provide a Newtonian DNS at La≈300 in the same geometry, or rheological characterization of the low-La liquids, or restrict the conclusion to the liquids used.
  2. [Sec. IV.B, Figs. 23–24] The post-rupture initial condition comprises a Young–Laplace equilibrium with a toroidal rim of radius R_rim/Rb = 0.01–0.03, with no reported sensitivity. Near the emission threshold, the rim radius controls the initial interfacial geometry and can determine whether the cavity reverses and a droplet detaches. Since the La=468 DNS is the only numerical evidence for sub-540 emission, this regularization uncertainty is important. Please report a sensitivity study for the emission/no-emission boundary as R_rim/Rb is varied by at least a factor of two, and ideally validate against the infinite-bath threshold.
  3. [Sec. V.B, Fig. 13; Sec. VII] The statement 'La < ≈300' is presented as a global threshold, but emission in Fig. 13 depends on H/Rb and Bo, and the paper concedes the parameter space is four-dimensional. Figure 13(a) shows that for a fixed La, emission occurs only above a certain confinement (small H/Rb). The minimum observed La should be reported together with the corresponding (H/Rb, RD/Rb, Bo) values, and the conclusion should be qualified to that region of parameter space rather than stated as a universal condition for sessile droplets.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The phrase 'for for R_D/R_b' contains a duplicated 'for'.
  2. [Sec. V.A] The sentence 'the dependence of R_d/ℓµ and and v_d/ℓµ' contains a duplicated 'and'.
  3. [Reference [5]] The author name 'S. Zaleski S.' has a duplicated initial; likely should be 'S. Zaleski'.
  4. [Figs. 17 and 22] The color scale is not described in the captions; please specify the color mapping for pressure.
  5. [Fig. 16] The experimental/numerical comparison is shown only for a high-La case. Adding a comparison for a low-La case, even qualitative, would strengthen confidence in the viscous DNS.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the La≈300 emission threshold is an experimental observation, and the scaling law and DNS are used as external baselines or independent checks, not as definitions of the result.

full rationale

The central claim (sessile droplets emit jet droplets for La below ≈300, versus ≈540 in an infinite bath) is presented as an experimental finding in Secs. V.B and VII, not as the output of a fitted model. The Gañán-Calvo scaling law (2)-(3) is used only as an external baseline for the infinite-bath case: Sec. V.A computes ΔR_d relative to R_d0 "calculated from the scaling law (2)" and checks that "the value of ε calculated from Eqs. (2) and (3) with R_d and v_d obtained from our experiment are consistent with the limit ε→0.043." This is an inverse consistency check, not a prediction forced by construction. The proposed mechanism (curvature-induced pressure gradient) is identified from DNS pressure fields (Figs. 17 and 22), obtained by solving the Navier-Stokes equations, not from the target outputs. The DNS initialization with R_rim/Rb = 0.01–0.03 is explicitly acknowledged as a regularization parameter and is validated by reproducing the infinite-bath threshold and Eq. (2); this is a modeling uncertainty, not a circular definition of the result. The self-citations present ([18], [32], [46]) are contextual comparisons or methodological references and are not load-bearing for the threshold claim. The paper itself flags a genuine evidentiary limitation: low-La data from 5 cSt silicone oil and sucrose solutions "may exhibit viscoelastic behavior" on the few-microsecond timescale, and Fig. 15 shows freezing attributed to extensional thickening; the Newtonian DNS is at La = 468, not at La ≈ 300. These caveats weaken the Newtonian extrapolation to water bubbles smaller than ≈4 µm, but they are correctness/evidentiary concerns, not circularity, because no equation in the paper reduces the claimed threshold to a fitted parameter or to the authors' own prior result.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central threshold claim rests on laboratory measurements and DNS rather than on new fitted constants. However, the analysis imports three fitted constants from prior infinite-bath scaling and the DNS uses a hand-chosen rim regularization. The most important hidden premise is Newtonian rheology at microsecond timescales, which the authors themselves question.

free parameters (4)
  • kd (scaling prefactor for droplet radius) = 0.6
    Constant in Eq. (2), fitted by Gañán-Calvo [3] to infinite-bath experiments/numerics; imported here as a reference. Not refit to sessile data.
  • kv (scaling prefactor for droplet velocity) = 16
    Constant in Eq. (2), fitted in [3]; used to compare sessile data with infinite-bath scaling.
  • epsilon (excess energy fraction without viscous dissipation) = 0.043
    Parameter in Eq. (3) fitted in [3]; the paper computes epsilon from its own R_d and v_d via Eqs. (2)-(3) and observes convergence to 0.043 as H/Rb→∞. Diagnostic, not load-bearing for the threshold claim.
  • R_rim/Rb (initial film rim radius in DNS) = 0.01–0.03
    Chosen regularization parameter in Sec. IV.B standing for unresolved film thickness and numerical start time; affects early-time interface shape and potentially pinch-off. Sensitivity is not varied systematically.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric flow up to first droplet detachment
    IV.B: DNS is axisymmetric; experiments remain axisymmetric only up to first droplet detachment, so later non-axisymmetric breakup is outside the claim.
  • ad hoc to paper Post-rupture initial condition can be represented by a Young-Laplace equilibrium with a toroidal rim and quiescent start
    IV.B: the cap film is removed at t=0 and replaced by a small rim of radius R_rim/Rb=0.01–0.03; this regularizes the unresolved film thickness and numerical start time. Sensitivity to R_rim is not reported.
  • domain assumption Liquids behave as Newtonian fluids at the relevant time scales
    V.B: the authors caution that 5 cSt silicone oil and sucrose solutions may be viscoelastic on microsecond time scales; the La-based regime map presumes Newtonian behavior.
  • domain assumption Air can be neglected in the dimensional analysis
    III: 'Neglecting the effects of air' in the scaling; DNS retains air but with small density/viscosity ratios.
  • domain assumption Infinite-bath scaling law (2)-(3) with fitted constants is a valid reference
    II and V.A: used to define Rd0 and epsilon; it is empirical and not re-derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bubble bursting in a sessile droplet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SVLYFATW

@misc{pith2026260722207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bubble bursting in a sessile droplet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SVLYFATW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22207}
}
read the original abstract

We analyzed experimentally and numerically the bursting of a bubble within a sessile droplet. Our experiments show that both sessile droplet curvature and confinement enhance the energy focusing. In the low-viscosity regime, this effect results in thinner, faster Worthington jets. In the high-viscosity regime, droplets are ejected for values of the Laplace number (the Reynolds number based on the visco-capillary velocity) smaller than the threshold for a bubble in an infinite liquid bath. This is probably the major result of the present work. Numerical simulations show the critical role of the additional pressure gradient arising from the curvature of the sessile droplet interface. The resulting force drives the liquid towards the bottom of the cavity, compressing it and accelerating jet formation. In the low-viscosity limit, the bottom of the cavity becomes smoother before jet ejection. This effect resembles the energy-focusing enhancement that occurs in an infinite liquid bath at the critical Laplace number, where short-wavelength waves are damped by viscosity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Sketch of the fluid configuration analyzed in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Images of the sessile droplet before injecting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Images of the bubble bursting for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Isolines of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Total emitted volume [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Regime map in the parameter plane defined by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: shows additional projections of the experi￾mental data from experiments with viscous liquids. The general trend observed in Fig. 13a is that increasing confinement (decreasing H/Rb) increases the range of Laplace number for which emission occurs. In other words, emiss…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Worthington jet emitted by bubble bursting in a droplet of the W/S/46.5 for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Comparison between the interface shape calculated numerically (solid lines) and obtained experimentally (images) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Hydrostatic pressure distribution during the cavity collapse in an infinite bath (left) and in a sessile droplet with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Cavity collapse in an infinite bath (green lines) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Cavity collapse in an infinite bath (green lines) and in a sessile droplet with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Cavity bottom height [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Released interfacial energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Hydrostatic pressure distribution during cavity collapse in an infinite bath (left) and in a sessile droplet with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Comparison between the cavity collapse in an infinite bath (green lines) and in a sessile droplet with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Vertical position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_24.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Jet formation in bubbles bursting at a free surface,

    L. Duchemin, S. Popinet, C. Josserand, and S. Zaleski, “Jet formation in bubbles bursting at a free surface,” Phys. Fluids14, 3000–3008 (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    Size of the top jet drop produced by bubble bursting,

    E. Ghabache and T. Seon, “Size of the top jet drop produced by bubble bursting,” Phys. Rev. Fluids1, 051901(R) (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Revision of bubble bursting: Uni- versal scaling laws of top jet drop size and speed,

    A. M. Ga˜ n´ an-Calvo, “Revision of bubble bursting: Uni- versal scaling laws of top jet drop size and speed,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 204502 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Minimum size for the top jet drop from a bursting bubble,

    C. F. Brasz, C. T. Bartlett, P. L. L. Walls, E. G. Flynn, Y. E. Yu, and J. C. Bird, “Minimum size for the top jet drop from a bursting bubble,” Phys. Rev. Fluids3, 074001 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Dynamics of jets pro- duced by bursting bubbles,

    L. Deike, E. Ghabache, G. Liger-Belair, A. K. Das, S. Za- leski S., S. Popinet, and T. Seon, “Dynamics of jets pro- duced by bursting bubbles,” Phys. Rev. Fluids3, 013603 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Capillary waves control the ejection of bubble bursting jets,

    J. M. Gordillo and J. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, “Capillary waves control the ejection of bubble bursting jets,” J. Fluid Mech.867, 556–571 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    negative

    extended their scaling analysis to cover the full range of the Laplace number. As mentioned above, other scal- ing laws have been proposed to successfully rationalize numerical and experimental results [5, 6, 44, 46]. III. FORMULA TION OF THE PROBLEM Consider a sessile droplet of a liquid of densityρand viscosityµresting on a solid surface (Fig. 2). The l...

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Ocean spray,

    F. Veron, “Ocean spray,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.17, 507–538 (2015)

    2015

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    On the physics of transient ejection from bubble bursting,

    A. M. Ga˜ n´ an-Calvo and J. M. L´ opez-Herrera, “On the physics of transient ejection from bubble bursting,” J. Fluid Mech.929, A12 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    The role of jet and film drops in controlling the mixing state of submicron sea spray aerosol particles,

    X. Wang, G. B. Deane, K. A. Moore, O. S. Ryder, M. D. Stokes, C. M. Beall, D. B. Collins, M. V. Santander, S. M. Burrows, C. M. Sultana, and K. A. Prather, “The role of jet and film drops in controlling the mixing state of submicron sea spray aerosol particles,” Proc. Natl. Ac...

    2017

  3. [11]

    Mass transfer at the ocean–atmosphere inter- face: The role of wave breaking, droplets, and bubbles,

    L. Deike, “Mass transfer at the ocean–atmosphere inter- face: The role of wave breaking, droplets, and bubbles,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.54, 191–224 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Ocean contributions to the marine boundary layer aerosol budget,

    N. Meskhidze, M. Salter, K. Sellegri, and S. Elliott, “Ocean contributions to the marine boundary layer aerosol budget,” Acc. Chem. Res.10, 98 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Sea spray aerosol: The chemical link between the oceans, atmosphere, and climate,

    R. E. Cochran, O. S. Ryder, V. H. Grassian, and K. A. Prather, “Sea spray aerosol: The chemical link between the oceans, atmosphere, and climate,” Acc. Chem. Res. 50, 599–604 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    The fluid dynamics of disease transmis- sion,

    L. Bourouiba, “The fluid dynamics of disease transmis- sion,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.53, 473–508 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Ocean emissions of microplastic,

    D. B. Shaw, Q. Li, J. K. Nunes, and L. Deike, “Ocean emissions of microplastic,” PNAS Nexus2, pgad296 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    NextGenerationEU

    Interestingly, the tiny droplet emitted att≃0.417 was observed in both the experiment and the numeri- cal simulation. This simulation shows that the droplet comes from the free-surface reversal produced by a cap- illary wave preceding the main one. Figures 17-21 compare the bu...

  9. [17]

    Air pollu- tion and skin diseases: A systematic review of epidemi- ological evidence,

    N. Singh, T. Schikowski, and J. Krutmann, “Air pollu- tion and skin diseases: A systematic review of epidemi- ological evidence,” American Journal of Clinical Derma- tology27, 261–276 (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    Air pollution and skin diseases,

    H. S. Han, J. Seok, and K. Y. Park, “Air pollution and skin diseases,” Annals of Dermatology37, 53–67 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Bubble-burst-induced puddle jumping and jet printing,

    W. Huang, M. S. Lori, A. Yang, K. Zhuang, Y. Cheng, M. Chen, C. Sun, T. Ming, H. Cui, and J. Cheng, “Bubble-burst-induced puddle jumping and jet printing,” Nat. Commun.17, 1818 (2026)

    2026

  12. [20]

    Effect of surface- active contaminants on bubble bursting yielding the smallest first-emitted droplet,

    S. Rodr ´ ıguez-Aparicio, A. Cebri´ an-Garc ´ ıa, E. J. Vega, J. M. Montanero, and M.G. Cabezas, “Effect of surface- active contaminants on bubble bursting yielding the smallest first-emitted droplet,” J. Fluid Mech.1032, A49 (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    Bursting the bubble: A molecular understanding of surfactant- water interfaces,

    C. P. Baryiames, P. Garrett, and C. R. Baiz, “Bursting the bubble: A molecular understanding of surfactant- water interfaces,” J.Chem. Phys.154, 170901 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Collective bursting of free-surface bubbles, and the role of surface contamination,

    B. Neel and L. Deike, “Collective bursting of free-surface bubbles, and the role of surface contamination,” J. Fluid Mech.917, A46 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Role of contam- ination in optimal droplet production by collective bub- ble bursting,

    B. Neel, M. A. Erinin, and L. Deike, “Role of contam- ination in optimal droplet production by collective bub- ble bursting,” Geophys. Res. Lett.49, e2021GL096740 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Dy- namics of a surfactant-laden bubble bursting through an interface,

    C .R. Constante-Amores, L. Kahouadji, A. Batchvarov, S. Shin, J. Chergui, D. Juric, and O.K. Matar, “Dy- namics of a surfactant-laden bubble bursting through an interface,” J. Fluid Mech.911, A57 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Influence of surfac- tant concentration on drop production by bubble burst- ing,

    J. Pierre, M. Poujol, and T. Seon, “Influence of surfac- tant concentration on drop production by bubble burst- ing,” Phys. Rev. Fluids7, 073602 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Sec- ondary bubble entrainment via primary bubble bursting at a viscoelastic surface,

    B. Ji, Z. Yang, Z. Wang, R. H. Ewoldt, and J. Feng, “Sec- ondary bubble entrainment via primary bubble bursting at a viscoelastic surface,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 104002 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Influence of a surfactant on bubble bursting,

    E.J. Vega and J.M. Montanero, “Influence of a surfactant on bubble bursting,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci.151, 111097 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Effect of sur- face viscoelasticity on top jet drops produced by bursting bubbles,

    Z. Yang, S. Barbhai, B. Ji, and J. Feng, “Effect of sur- face viscoelasticity on top jet drops produced by bursting bubbles,” Soft Matter20, 4868 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Bursting bubble in a viscoplastic medium,

    V. Sanjay, D. Lohse, and M. Jalaal, “Bursting bubble in a viscoplastic medium,” J. Fluid Mech.922, A2 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Flowering in bursting bubbles with viscoelastic interfaces,

    D. Tammaro, V. C. Suja, A. Kannan, L. D. Gala, E. D. Maio, G. G. Fuller, and P. L. Maffettone, “Flowering in bursting bubbles with viscoelastic interfaces,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118, e2105058118 (2021). 14

    2021

  23. [31]

    Bubble bursting in a weakly-viscoelastic liquid,

    P. Rodr ´ ıguez-D ´ ıaz, A. Rubio, J. M. Montanero, A.M. Ga˜ n´ an-Calvo, and M. G. Cabezas, “Bubble bursting in a weakly-viscoelastic liquid,” Phys. Fluids35, 102107 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Viscoelastic Worthington jets and droplets produced by bursting bubbles,

    A. K. Dixit, A. Oratis, K. Zinelis, and Vatsal Sanjay Detlef Lohse, “Viscoelastic Worthington jets and droplets produced by bursting bubbles,” J. Fluid Mech.1010, A2 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Bursting bubble in an elasto- viscoplastic medium,

    A. G. Balasubramanian, V. Sanjay, M. Jalaal, R. Vin- uesa, and O. Tammisola, “Bursting bubble in an elasto- viscoplastic medium,” J. Fluid Mech.1001, A9 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Effect of the polymer viscosity and relax- ation time on the Worthington jet produced by bubble bursting in weakly viscoelastic liquids,

    E. Cabalgante-Corrales, B. N. Mu˜ noz-S´ anchez, J. M. L´ opez-Herrera, M. G. Cabezas, E. J. Vega, and J. M. Montanero, “Effect of the polymer viscosity and relax- ation time on the Worthington jet produced by bubble bursting in weakly viscoelastic liquids,” Int. J. Multi- pha...

    2025

  27. [35]

    Effect of a poly- meric compound layer on jetting dynamics produced by bursting bubbles,

    S. A. Barbhai, Z. Yang, and J. Feng, “Effect of a poly- meric compound layer on jetting dynamics produced by bursting bubbles,” RSC Adv.15, 7710–7720 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Compound jetting from bubble bursting at an air-oil-water interface,

    B. Ji, Z. Yang, and J. Feng, “Compound jetting from bubble bursting at an air-oil-water interface,” Nat. Com- mun.12, 6305 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Daughter oil droplet en- trainment by oil-coated bubble bursting,

    Z. Yang, B. Ji, and J. Feng, “Daughter oil droplet en- trainment by oil-coated bubble bursting,” J. Fluid Mech. 977, A10 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Enhanced sin- gular jet formation in oil-coated bubble bursting,

    Z. Yang, B. Ji, J. T. Ault, and J. Feng, “Enhanced sin- gular jet formation in oil-coated bubble bursting,” Nat. Phys.19, 884–890 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Jet size prediction in compound multiphase bubble bursting,

    Z. Yang, Y. Liu, and J. Feng, “Jet size prediction in compound multiphase bubble bursting,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 214001 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Water-to-air transfer of nano/microsized particulates: Enrichment effect in bub- ble bursting jet drops,

    B. Ji, A. Singh, and J. Feng, “Water-to-air transfer of nano/microsized particulates: Enrichment effect in bub- ble bursting jet drops,” Nano Lett.22, 5626–5634 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Enrichment of scavenged particles in jet drops determined by bubble size and particle position,

    L. Dubitsky, O. McRae, and J. C. Bird, “Enrichment of scavenged particles in jet drops determined by bubble size and particle position,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 054001 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Confinement-induced suppression of jet drop size by bubble bursting in shallow liquids,

    Z. Yang, V. Sanjay, C. R. Constante-Amores, and J. Feng, “Confinement-induced suppression of jet drop size by bubble bursting in shallow liquids,” arXiv:2606.28609 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bubble bursting: Universal cavity and jet profiles,

    C.-Y. Lai, J. Eggers, and L. Deike, “Bubble bursting: Universal cavity and jet profiles,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 144501 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Theory of the jets ejected after the inertial collapse of cavities with applications to bubble bursting jets,

    J. M. Gordillo and F. J. Blanco–Rodr ´ ıguez, “Theory of the jets ejected after the inertial collapse of cavities with applications to bubble bursting jets,” Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 073606 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Self-similar worthington jets,

    J. M. Gordillo, J. Rodr ´ ıguez–Rodr ´ ıguez, and V. San- jay, “Self-similar worthington jets,” arXiv:2607.08972 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Role of all jet drops in mass transfer from bursting bubbles,

    A. Berny, L. Deike, T. Seon, and S. Popinet, “Role of all jet drops in mass transfer from bursting bubbles,” Phys. Rev. Fluids5, 033605 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Scaling laws of top jet drop size and speed from bubble bursting including gravity and inviscid limit,

    A. M. Ga˜ n´ an-Calvo, “Scaling laws of top jet drop size and speed from bubble bursting including gravity and inviscid limit,” Phys. Rev. Fluids3, 091601(R) (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    J. M. Montanero,Tip Streaming of Simple and Complex Fluids(Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Wetting and roughness,

    D. Quere, “Wetting and roughness,” Annu. Rev. Mater. Res.38, 71–99 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    An accurate adaptive solver for surface- tension-driven interfacial flows,

    S. Popinet, “An accurate adaptive solver for surface- tension-driven interfacial flows,” Journal of Computa- tional Physics228, 5838–5866 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    A quadtree-adaptive multigrid solver for the Serre–Green–Naghdi equations,

    S. Popinet, “A quadtree-adaptive multigrid solver for the Serre–Green–Naghdi equations,” Journal of Compu- tational Physics302, 336–358 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Basilisk flow solver andPDElibrary,

    S. Popinet, “Basilisk flow solver andPDElibrary,” http://basilisk.fr/, accessed: 2018/07/23

    2018

  45. [53]

    Prosperetti and G

    A. Prosperetti and G. Tryggvason,Computational Meth- ods for Multiphase Flow(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  46. [54]

    Tryggvason, R

    G. Tryggvason, R. Scardovelli, and S. Zaleski,Direct Numerical Simulations of Gas–Liquid Multiphase Flows (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    A con- tinuum method for modeling surface tension,

    J. U. Brackbill, D. B. Kothe, and C. Zemach, “A con- tinuum method for modeling surface tension,” Journal of Computational Physics100, 335–354 (1992)

    1992

  48. [56]

    Numerical models of surface tension,

    S. Popinet, “Numerical models of surface tension,” An- nual Review of Fluid Mechanics50, 49–75 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Towards adaptive grids for atmospheric boundary-layer simulations,

    J. A. van Hooft, S. Popinet, C. C. van Heerwaarden, S. J. A. van der Linden, S. R. de Roode, and B. J. H. van de Wiel, “Towards adaptive grids for atmospheric boundary-layer simulations,” Boundary-Layer Meteorol- ogy167, 421–443 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Bursting bubble aerosols,

    H. Lhuissier and E. Villermaux, “Bursting bubble aerosols,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics696, 5–44 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    The dynamics of thin sheets of fluid. III. disintegration of fluid sheets,

    G. I. Taylor, “The dynamics of thin sheets of fluid. III. disintegration of fluid sheets,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A253, 313–321 (1959)

    1959

  52. [60]

    Comments on a ruptured soap film,

    F. E. C. Culick, “Comments on a ruptured soap film,” Journal of Applied Physics31, 1128–1129 (1960)

    1960

  53. [61]

    Jet drops from bursting bubbles: How gravity and viscosity cou- ple to inhibit droplet production,

    P. L. L. Walls, L. Henaux, and J. C. Bird, “Jet drops from bursting bubbles: How gravity and viscosity cou- ple to inhibit droplet production,” Phys. Rev. E92, 021002(R) (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Complex behavior very close to the pinching of a liquid free surface,

    M. Rubio, A. Ponce-Torres, E. J. Vega, M. A. Herrada, and J. M. Montanero, “Complex behavior very close to the pinching of a liquid free surface,” Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 021602(R) (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.