Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Beyond the Mean-flow: A Spectral-Dynamic Approach to Unraveling the Physics of Droplet Capture in Fog Harvesting Meshes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fog-harvesting meshes capture the most droplets when the droplet response time matches the mesh-induced flow timescale, a matching condition that explains why a triangular mesh beats square, trapezoidal, hexagonal, and harp-shaped designs.

desk verdict Promising spectral-dynamic framing, but the paper's central Pi~O(1) optimum is contradicted by its own Table 5, Table 6, and Fig. 6(b). read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04325 v1 pith:LJINXLKQ submitted 2026-08-05 physics.flu-dyn

Pradyumna Das , Ranjan Ganguly , Ashoke De This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn PACS 47.55.Kf
keywords fogharvestingdropletcaptureefficiencyspectralanalysisEulerian-Lagrangiansimulationdynamictimescalematchingmeshgeometryoptimizationpowerdensitysizedistribution
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

Fog-harvesting efficiency is usually discussed through mean-flow metrics, but this paper claims that what really decides whether a droplet hits a mesh fiber is whether the droplet can keep time with the flow's own fluctuations. Using two-way coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian simulations of 2–40 µm fog droplets across five mesh geometries, the authors extract a characteristic flow timescale from the power spectrum of near-mesh velocity and compare it with the droplet response time. The resulting matching parameter, $\Pi = \tau_p f_d$, gives the highest capture efficiency when it is of order unity; geometries with broadband, spatially balanced unsteadiness (triangular) sustain that condition, while narrowband, weak, or intermittent spectra (square, trapezoidal, hexagonal, vertical) degrade it. This yields a mechanistic explanation for the observed geometry ranking and a semi-empirical correlation, recasting mesh design as a timescale-matching problem rather than a search for stronger fluctuations. Because drainage and re-entrainment are not modeled, the reported numbers are capture efficiencies, not field collection efficiencies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dynamic matching parameter $\Pi = \tau_p f_d$, which combines the Stokes-regime droplet response time $\tau_p = \rho_d D_d^2/(18\mu)$ with the characteristic flow frequency $f_d$ extracted from the power spectral density of near-mesh velocity fluctuations. $f_d$ is computed as the PSD-weighted mean frequency (the spectral centroid) over the 100–5000 Hz band from 0.06 s probe signals, a window sized to capture fiber-scale vortex shedding near 5000 Hz. The parameter does the work that the classical Stokes number cannot: because inlet velocity, strand width, and shade coefficient are fixed across the five geometries, $St$ is identical for a given droplet size, whereas $\Pi$ inherits each geometry's spectral signature and orders the configurations. The companion correlation $\eta = \eta_{\max}\frac{\Pi}{\Pi+\Pi^{-1}}\exp[-\alpha(\ln\Pi/\beta)^2]$ encodes the three interaction regimes — flow-following ($\Pi \ll 1$), dynamically matched ($\Pi \sim O(1)$), and inertia-dominated ($\Pi \gg 1$) — with a Gaussian penalty for timescale mismatch in logarithmic space.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to recompute $f_d$ from probe records long enough to resolve frequencies down to about 1 Hz at the same simulation setup and test whether the geometry ranking of $\Pi$ still matches the capture-efficiency ranking; if efficiencies peak at $\Pi$ values far from unity under the wider window, or if the ordering changes, the spectral-centroid definition of $\tau_f$ is the refuted link. A complementary wind-tunnel test with monodisperse droplets and triangular versus square meshes at several wind speeds would check the stronger prediction that the efficiency peak tracks the $\Pi \approx 1$ contour as $f_d$ scales with velocity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that droplet capture in fog-harvesting meshes is controlled by dynamic compatibility between droplet inertia and geometry-induced flow unsteadiness, not by fluctuation magnitude alone. The paper defines a characteristic flow frequency $f_d$ as the PSD-weighted mean frequency (spectral centroid) of near-mesh velocity fluctuations, giving a flow timescale $\tau_f \sim 1/f_d$, and compares it with the Stokes-regime droplet response time $\tau_p = \rho_d D_d^2/(18\mu)$ through the parameter $\Pi = \tau_p/\tau_f = \tau_p f_d$. $\Pi$ is presented as a frequency-based analogue of the Stokes number: at fixed inlet velocity, strand width, and shade coefficient, the classical $St$ cannot distinguish the geometries for a given droplet size, whereas $\Pi$ inherits each geometry's spectral signature and orders the five configurations. Capture efficiency is maximized when $\Pi$ is of order unity (roughly 1–6), and the triangular mesh wins because its broadband, moderately amplified spectrum extends the region over which droplets experience sustained, matched forcing. A physics-inspired correlation, $\eta = \eta_{\max}\frac{\Pi}{\Pi+\Pi^{-1}}\exp[-\alpha(\ln\Pi/\beta)^2]$, with geometry-dependent fitted parameters (reported $R^2$ from 0.936 to 0.981), collapses the diameter-dependent efficiency curves, and the authors frame the result as mechanistic design guidance rather than a proven universal optimum, noting the single-velocity, uniform-inflow conditions simulated.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spectral centroid $f_d$ computed from 0.06-second probe signals over the 100–5000 Hz band captures the flow timescale that actually controls droplet capture; if the controlling unsteadiness lies below 100 Hz, or if a single weighted mean cannot represent a broadband forcing spectrum, then the $\Pi$ ordering and the order-unity condition are artifacts of the chosen frequency window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the simulated conditions (5 m/s inlet, 0.6 shade coefficient), capture efficiency ranks triangular above square above trapezoidal above hexagonal above vertical for all droplet sizes, and the ranking follows from how each geometry shapes the spectral distribution of near-mesh unsteadiness.
  • The framework reduces mesh design to a single objective: maximize the spatial and spectral extent over which $\Pi \approx 1$ holds for the droplet sizes that carry most liquid water mass, rather than maximizing fluctuation intensity.
  • $\Pi$ is flow-dependent, not geometry-static: if Strouhal-number similarity holds ($f_d \propto U/l_f$), the same mesh can be well-matched at one wind speed and poorly matched at another, so a given geometry must be chosen for its intended operating envelope.
  • Because the simulations assume deterministic adhesion of low-Weber-number droplets and exclude drainage, the reported values are capture efficiencies (aerodynamic times deposition) and would be multiplied by a drainage efficiency of roughly 45–95% to approach field collection performance.
  • The paper offers Eq. (15) with geometry-dependent fitted parameters as a physics-inspired semi-empirical model whose predictive use requires an independent estimate of $f_d$, for instance from Strouhal-number correlations, together with multi-velocity and turbulent-inflow validation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The matching criterion implies a screening protocol the paper does not run: at a target wind speed, measure or simulate the near-mesh velocity spectrum of candidate geometries, compute each spectral centroid $f_d$, and pick the geometry that brings the mass-dominant droplet size to $\Pi \approx 1$.
  • If the expected scaling $f_d \propto U/l_f$ holds, $\Pi$ acts as a reduced frequency and mesh design becomes a resonance-matching problem: a mesh tuned for one wind speed could be retuned for another by rescaling strand width, a quantitative prediction that multi-velocity experiments could test.
  • The paper's own analysis window leaves an acknowledged blind spot below 100 Hz: the 0.06 s sampling resolves fiber-scale shedding but not domain-scale or atmospheric low-frequency unsteadiness, so the framework's field relevance depends on those low frequencies being unimportant for droplet interception.
  • A reader should note an internal inconsistency in the manuscript: Section 3.3 says the spectral analysis focuses on the transverse velocity component, while Appendix A4 says the streamwise component was analyzed; because $f_d$ enters every $\Pi$ value and the final correlation, resolving which component defines the timescale would settle what the matching parameter measures.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a spectral-dynamic framework for fog-harvesting mesh design, based on Eulerian–Lagrangian simulations of droplet-laden flow across five mesh geometries at a fixed inlet velocity of 5 m/s. The central quantity is the dynamic matching parameter Π = τ_p f_d, where τ_p is the droplet response time and f_d is a PSD-weighted characteristic frequency of the near-mesh flow. The authors claim that capture efficiency is maximized when Π is of order unity, that the triangular mesh outperforms the other geometries because it produces broadband, spatially distributed fluctuations, and they propose a semi-empirical correlation (Eq. 15) with geometry-dependent fitted parameters. The validation against Chen's single-cylinder collision-efficiency data is reasonable, and the manuscript is explicit about its limitations, including the single velocity and the absence of drainage modeling.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the Π parameter would provide a physically motivated, geometry-sensitive alternative to the classical Stokes number for fog-harvesting mesh design, and the proposed correlation could serve as a design tool. The paper also offers a detailed spectral characterization of near-mesh unsteadiness, and the authors are transparent about the semi-empirical nature of their model and the need for future validation. However, the central claim is undermined by internal inconsistencies between the reported efficiency data, the tabulated Π values, and the fitted correlation parameters, as detailed in the major comments. The framework is interesting, but as written the evidence does not establish the Π∼O(1) optimum.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5, Eq. (15), Tables 5 and 6] The fitted correlation is internally inconsistent with the reported Π values. For the triangular mesh, Table 6 gives η_max=34.1%, α=1.35, and β=0.58, while Table 5 lists Π=3.45 for the 30 μm droplets, which the text identifies as having the highest capture efficiency. Substituting these values into Eq. (15) gives a Gaussian penalty exp[−1.35(ln(3.45)/0.58)²] ≈ 2.1×10⁻³, so the predicted efficiency at 30 μm is about 0.07%, not 34.1%. The same contradiction holds for the square mesh (Π=3.29, β=0.52 gives a penalty of roughly 3×10⁻⁴). Thus Eq. (15) with the Table 6 parameters cannot have been fitted to the capture-efficiency data if the Table 5 Π values are the ones used. Either the Π values, the fitted α/β, the efficiency data, or the velocity-component choice feeding Eq. (25) is erroneous; as written, the correlation does not support the claim that the highest efficiency occurs at Π∼O(1).
  2. [Section 3.2, Fig. 6(b), Section 3.4E] The central claim that capture efficiency peaks at Π∼O(1) is contradicted by the presented data. The text states that capture efficiency increases monotonically with droplet diameter over the range considered, and Fig. 6(b) shows no decline at large diameters. Yet Section 3.2 defines Regime IV (St>69.4) with a decline in efficiency, and Section 3.4E identifies 30 μm droplets as the highest-efficiency case. Since both St and Π increase monotonically with droplet diameter, the maximum efficiency in the data occurs at the largest diameter (Π≈6 for the triangular mesh), not at Π∼1. The Π∼O(1) optimum is therefore not observable in the simulations as reported; the monotonic trend in Fig. 6(b) actively contradicts the proposed peak.
  3. [Appendix A4, Eq. (25), Section 3.3A] The characteristic frequency f_d is computed as a PSD-weighted mean over the 100–5000 Hz band, but Appendix A4 itself acknowledges that domain-scale low-frequency interactions (f<100 Hz) are poorly resolved within the 0.06 s sampling window. The paper provides no sensitivity analysis with respect to the integration band or the probe placement. If the droplet-relevant unsteadiness lies below 100 Hz, the Π values in Table 5 and the entire regime classification would change. This is a load-bearing methodological choice that needs at least a sensitivity test (e.g., recomputing f_d with a lower band limit of 16.7 Hz, the actual frequency resolution) to establish that the reported Π ordering is not an artifact of the chosen window.
  4. [Appendix A4 vs Section 3.3A] There is a direct contradiction in the velocity component used for the spectral analysis. Section 3.3A states, "The analysis focuses on the transverse velocity component, which plays a dominant role in droplet deflection and interception," whereas Appendix A4 states, "The streamwise velocity component was obtained at each probe position and utilized for spectral analysis." Since f_d and hence Π depend on this choice, the manuscript must specify which velocity component was actually used, justify that choice physically, and, if the transverse component was intended, correct the Appendix description. Without this clarification, the reproducibility of the Π values in Table 5 is in question.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4(b) caption] The caption refers to the "rectangular mesh," but the text and the geometry description use "square mesh"; the terminology should be unified throughout.
  2. [References] Reference 26 is cited near Eq. (10) and in the text as Langmuir's paradigm, but the reference list entry for item 26 is Johnson, Kendall, and Roberts (1971). Please check and correct the citation numbering.
  3. [Section 3.5 and Conclusions] There are spelling errors in key passages: "persistant" should be "persistent" (Section 3.5), and "remaines" should be "remains" (Conclusions).
  4. [Appendix A5–A8] The appendix figure numbering is inconsistent with the in-text references (e.g., Table 4 refers to Fig. A8 for the square mesh, but the square mesh appears in Appendix A7). Please align the figure numbering.
  5. [Section 3.2] The Stokes-number thresholds for Regimes III and IV (44.4 and 69.4) are presented without derivation or a table showing the corresponding droplet sizes; please indicate how these thresholds are obtained and how they relate to Fig. 6(b).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation detected; the spectral-dynamic correlation is an explicitly labeled semi-empirical fit rather than a prediction masquerading as a derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central quantity Pi is defined from simulated flow fields via Eq. (14) and the PSD-weighted mean frequency fd of Eq. (25), while capture efficiency eta is obtained independently from Lagrangian particle tracking; the relationship between eta and Pi is then fitted with Eq. (15). The manuscript repeatedly and explicitly identifies this as a semi-empirical correlation, stating that Eq. (15) 'should be interpreted as a physics-inspired semi-empirical model rather than a first-principles derivation' and that because 'fd is extracted from the simulated flow field, Pi is data-informed rather than fully a priori predictive.' This is transparent empirical fitting, not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The Pi ~ O(1) claim is presented as an interpretation of the simulation data, not as a theorem derived from Eq. (15); the Gaussian peak at Pi = 1 in Eq. (15) is a modeling choice that encodes that interpretation, which is a consistency issue at most, not circularity. The self-citations to Ghosh and Ganguly are used for standard definitions of capture efficiency, drainage efficiency, and mesh wettability, and are not load-bearing for the spectral-dynamic claim; the solver validation relies on the independent Chen/Langmuir benchmark. The internal inconsistency between Table 5 and the fitted parameters of Table 6 (e.g., Pi = 3.45 at 30 um for the triangular mesh would make Eq. (15) predict near-zero efficiency) is a serious correctness concern, but it is not a circularity issue because the fitted relation is not being used to define its own inputs. The paper also openly flags its limitations, including the single inlet velocity and the need for independent estimation of fd, further reducing any appearance of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on 18 fitted or hand-chosen parameters, specifically eta_max, alpha, and beta per geometry, the spectral centroid band, and the unstated Rosin-Rammler parameters, plus a set of standard CFD and spectral-method axioms and one new dimensionless parameter, Pi. The fitted coefficients in Table 6 are the clearest evidence that Eq. (15) is a regression rather than a derivation.

free parameters (5)
  • eta_max (per geometry) = Triangular 34.1%, Square 30.2%, Trapezoidal 24.6%, Hexagonal 15.8%, Vertical 9.6%
    Fitted to simulated capture efficiency in Eq. (15); sets the asymptotic efficiency ceiling for each geometry.
  • alpha (per geometry) = Triangular 1.35, Square 1.55, Trapezoidal 1.28, Hexagonal 1.10, Vertical 1.70
    Gaussian penalty width in Eq. (15); fitted by least squares.
  • beta (per geometry) = Triangular 0.58, Square 0.52, Trapezoidal 0.56, Hexagonal 0.63, Vertical 0.50
    Gaussian mismatch scale in Eq. (15); fitted by least squares.
  • Spectral centroid integration band = 100-5000 Hz
    Hand-chosen frequency window for fd = sum(f_i S_i)/sum(S_i) in Eq. (25); controls every Pi value.
  • Rosin-Rammler parameters d_eta and n = not reported
    Calibrated to the SIRTA peak range but exact values are not given; they set the injected droplet size distribution and hence the droplet population.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Incompressible Navier-Stokes equations and the BBO particle equation govern the carrier and dispersed phases (Eqs. 1-4).
    Background continuum and particle mechanics used without modification.
  • standard math Schiller-Naumann drag law and the Stokes response time formula are valid for 2-40 micrometer droplets (Eqs. 7 and 12).
    Standard drag correlation; the Stokes formula is used even though Re_p reaches about 200, beyond the strict Stokes regime.
  • domain assumption Droplets adhere deterministically on impact; rebound and splashing are neglected (Section 2.2).
    Justified by low Weber numbers and the Mundo threshold, but not validated for the full mesh geometries.
  • domain assumption Uniform, laminar, turbulence-free inflow at 5 m/s is representative enough to isolate geometry effects (Sections 2.3 and 3).
    The authors acknowledge that real fog inflow can be turbulent, which limits generalization.
  • domain assumption The PSD-weighted mean frequency over the 100-5000 Hz band is the characteristic flow frequency fd (Eq. 25, Appendix A4).
    The central Pi parameter inherits this choice; low-frequency content below 100 Hz is excluded.
  • ad hoc to paper The functional form of Eq. (15), including its Gaussian mismatch penalty, is assumed rather than derived from data.
    The paper calls the correlation physics-inspired and semi-empirical; the penalty term is not independently supported by the plotted efficiency curves.
invented entities (1)
  • Dynamic matching parameter Pi = tau_p f_d
    purpose: Dimensionless measure of droplet-flow timescale compatibility used to rationalize capture efficiency rankings and to build Eq. (15).
    Introduced in this paper; computed from the simulated PSD centroid and droplet response time, with no independent measurement or external validation. It is a new dimensionless parameter rather than a physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond the Mean-flow: A Spectral-Dynamic Approach to Unraveling the Physics of Droplet Capture in Fog Harvesting Meshes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJINXLKQ

@misc{pith2026260804325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond the Mean-flow: A Spectral-Dynamic Approach to Unraveling the Physics of Droplet Capture in Fog Harvesting Meshes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJINXLKQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04325}
}
read the original abstract

Fog harvesting efficiency with mesh collectors is governed by complex interactions between droplet inertia and geometry-induced flow structures. Although previous studies have primarily relied on mean-flow metrics, the present work introduces a spectral-dynamic framework to examine an important but often overlooked control on droplet capture. A two-way coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian model is used to simulate droplet-laden flow (2-40 microm) across five representative mesh geometries. The results show that capture efficiency correlates not only with the magnitude of velocity fluctuations, but also with their spectral distribution and persistence. Frequency-domain analysis indicates that mesh geometry redistributes fluctuation energy across pore and obstruction regions, thereby defining a characteristic flow timescale. By comparing this flow timescale with the droplet response time, a dynamic matching parameter, {\Pi}= droplet response time/flow time scale, is introduced. The highest capture efficiency occurs when {\Pi} is order unity, corresponding to sustained droplet-flow interaction in the near-mesh region. Geometries that generate broadband, moderately amplified spectral content (e.g., triangular mesh) increase droplet residence time and interception probability, whereas geometries with either weak or highly localized fluctuations reduce performance through insufficient forcing or premature bypass. A physics-inspired correlation for capture efficiency is proposed based on this condition. The study therefore provides mechanistic design guidance, rather than a definitive optimum, for geometry optimization in fog-harvesting meshes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04325 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG 2. Computational grid generated using blockMesh (OpenFOAM). (a) Overview of the whole domain (inset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG 3. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Enlarged geometric representation and velocity profile of the triangular mesh, illustrating the flow-structure classification adopted in this study, including the wake core (Region 1), accelerated through-pore jets (Region 2), near-mesh eddies (Region 3), distribut…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probe location selected in order to address the underlying physics at local sections probes at the vicinity of fogmesh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a) Schematic representation of droplet transport and interaction across different flow regions in a triangular fog mes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., & Lea, J

    Abdul-Wahab, S. A., & Lea, J. (2018). Simplified modeling and analysis of the fog water harvesting system in the Asir region of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.International Journal of Low -Carbon Technologies, 13(2), 200 -213. https:/doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/cty001

    work page doi:10.1093/ijlct/cty001 2018

  2. [2]

    Desalination 472

    Abu El-Maaty AE, Awad MM, Sultan GI, Hamed AM (2019) Solar powered fog desalination system. Desalination 472. https:// doi. org/

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Desalination 504

    Abu El-Maaty AE, Awad MM, Sultan GI, Hamed AM (2021) Performance study of fog desalination system coupled with evacuated tube solar collector. Desalination 504. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. desal. 2021. 114960

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Water Resour Manag

    Alotaibi M, Alhajeri NS, Al-Fadhli FM, Al Jabri S, Gabr M (2023) Impact of climate change on crop irrigation requirements in arid regions. Water Resour Manag. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11269- 023- 03465-5

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Bull Fac En g, Mansoura Univ 42(1):1

    Awad K, Awad M, Kandel A (2020) Extraction of water from atmospheric air using double slope condensation surface. Bull Fac En g, Mansoura Univ 42(1):1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21608/ bfemu. 2020. 97651

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    G., Balachandran, W., & Williams, T

    Bailey, A. G., Balachandran, W., & Williams, T. J. (1983). The Rosin –Rammler size distribution for liquid droplet ensembles. Journal of Aerosol Science, 14(1), 39–46

    work page 1983

  7. [7]

    S., & Piersol, A

    Bendat, J. S., & Piersol, A. G. (2011). Random data: Analysis and measurement procedures. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118032428

    doi:10.1002/9781118032428 2011

  8. [8]

    Bouzidi, M., et al. (2025). Flow structures in the near wake of permeable circular cylinders in shallow water. European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids, 111, 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechflu.2025.01.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.euromechflu.2025.01.013 2025

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Capecelatro, J., & Desjardins, O. (2013). An Euler–Lagrange strategy for simulating particle-laden flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 238, 1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2012.12.015

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    1016/j. desal. 2019. 114130

    2019

  3. [11]

    Chen, L., Liu, R., & Cao, Y. X. (2013). A new analytical expression of overall collision efficiency for the water droplet impinging on a cylinder. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 392, 90–94. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.392.90

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Chen, Z., Ortiz, A., Zong, L., & Nepf, H. M. (2012). The wake structure behind a porous obstruction and its implications for deposition near a finite patch of emergent vegetation. Water Resources Research, 48, W09517. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012224

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    J., & Ihme, M

    Ching, E. J., & Ihme, M. (2020). Development of a two -way coupled Euler –Lagrange method for particle -laden flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 408, 109276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109276

    2020

  6. [14]

    Water Resour Manag 31(1)

    Chitsaz N, Azarnivand A (2017) Water scarcity management in arid regions based on an extended multiple criteria technique. Water Resour Manag 31(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11269- 016- 1521-5

    2017

  7. [15]

    De Dios Rivera, J. (2011). Aerodynamic collection efficiency of fog water collectors. Atmospheric Research, 102(3), 335 –342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.08.005

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Di, H., Wang, Z., & Hua, D. (2019). Precise size distribution measurement of aerosol particles and fog droplets in the open a tmosphere. Optics Express, 27(0), A890–A904. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.27.00A890

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Seatific J 2(2):102–127 (c) (d) 37

    Elshennawy AA, Awad MM, Abdelaal MY, Hamed AM (2022) Fog collection - materials, techniques and affecting parameters - A review. Seatific J 2(2):102–127 (c) (d) 37

    2022

  10. [18]

    Renew Energy 162

    Fathy MH, Awad MM, Zeidan ESB, Hamed AM (2020) Solar powered foldable apparatus for extracting water from atmospheric air. Renew Energy 162. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. renene. 2020. 07. 020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Ghosh, R., & Ganguly, R. (2020). Fog harvesting from cooling towers using metal mesh: Effects of aerodynamic, deposition, and drainage efficiencies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 234(8), 1152 -1165

    2020

  12. [20]

    Influence of metal mesh wettability on fog harvesting in industrial cooling towers

    Ghosh, R., Patra, C., Singh, P., Ganguly, R., Sahu, R.P., Zhitomirsky, I., Puri, I.K., 2020. Influence of metal mesh wettability on fog harvesting in industrial cooling towers. Applied Thermal Engineering 181, 115963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115963

    2020

  13. [21]

    Cooling tower fog harvesting in power plants – a pilot study

    Ghosh R, Ray TK and Ganguly R. Cooling tower fog harvesting in power plants – a pilot study. Energy 2015; 89: 1018–1028

    2015

  14. [22]

    Greifzu, F., Kratzsch, C., Forgber, T., Lindner, F., & Schwarze, R. (2016). Assessment of particle -tracking models for dispersed particle- laden flows implemented in OpenFOAM and ANSYS FLUENT. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 10(1), 30–

    2016

  15. [23]

    J Colloid Interface Sci 353(2):335–

    Guo Z, Liu W, Su BL (2011) Superhydrophobic surfaces: From natural to biomimetic to functional. J Colloid Interface Sci 353(2):335–

    2011

  16. [24]

    C., Cermak, J., Bott, A., Bendix, J., Muller, M

    Gultepe, I., Tardif, R., Michaelides, S. C., Cermak, J., Bott, A., Bendix, J., Muller, M. D., Pagowski , M., Hansen, B., Ellrod, G., Jacobs, W., Toth, G., & Cober, S. G. (2007). Fog research: A review of past achievements and future perspectives. Pure and Applied Ge ophysics, ...

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    Haervig, J., Sørensen, K., & Condra, T. J. (2018). Early stages of agglomeration of adhesive particles in fully -developed turbulent pipe flows. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 106, 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2018.04.017

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Kendall, K., & Roberts, A

    Johnson, K. L., Kendall, K., & Roberts, A. D. (1971). Surface energy and the contact of elastic solids. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 324(1558), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1971.0141

    1971

  19. [27]

    K., Ali, I., Saleh, T

    Gupta, V. K., Ali, I., Saleh, T. A., Nayak, A., & Agarwal, S. (2012). Chemical treatment technologies for waste -water recycling—An overview. RSC Advances, 2(16), 6380 –6388

    2012

  20. [28]

    Langmuir, I., & Blodgett, K. B. (1946). A mathematical investigation of water droplet trajectories. U.S. Army Air Forces Technical Report No. 5418, Washington D.C. (Reprinted in NACA Technical Note 2904)

    1946

  21. [29]

    Marshall, J. S. (2009). Discrete -element modeling of particulate aerosol flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 228(5), 1541 –1561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2008.10.035

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    T., 2016

    Josserand, C., Thoroddsen, S. T., 2016. Drop impact on a solid surface . Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 48, 365 –391. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-122414-034401

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Marzol, M.V ., & Schemenauer, R. S. (2000). Fog collection in semi -arid areas. In proceedings of the Second Internatonal Conference on Fog and Fog Collection(pp. 305-308)

    2000

  24. [32]

    Mazoyer, M., Burnet, F., & Denjean, C. (2022). Experimental study on the evolution of droplet size distribution during the fog life cycle. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22, 11305–11322. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-11305-2022

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    V., & Jaramillo, O

    Marta, M. V., & Jaramillo, O. M. (2021). On the aerodynamic fog collection efficiency of fog water collectors via three -dimensional numerical simulations. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 208, 104462. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia. 2020.104462

    2021

  26. [34]

    Montecinos, S., Carvajal, D., Cereceda, P., & Concha, M. (2018). Collection efficiency of fog events. Atmospheric Research, 2 09, 163–

    2018

  27. [35]

    Droplet-wall collisions: Experimental studies of the deformation and breakup process

    Mundo, C., Sommerfeld, M., Tropea, C., 1995. Droplet-wall collisions: Experimental studies of the deformation and breakup process . International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 21(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-9322(94)00069-V

    1995 doi

  28. [36]

    Am Assoc Adv Sci

    Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY (2016) Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Am Assoc Adv Sci. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ sciadv. 15003 23

    2016

  29. [37]

    S., Srinivasan, S., Cohen, R

    Park, K.-C., Chhatre, S. S., Srinivasan, S., Cohen, R. E., & McKinley, G. H. (2013). Optimal design of permeable fiber network structures for fog harvesting. Langmuir, 29, 13269–13277. dx.doi.org/10.1021/la402409f

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    Generalized Basset –Boussinesq–Oseen equation for unsteady forces on a sphere in a compressible flow

    Parmar M, Haselbacher A, Balachandar S. Generalized Basset –Boussinesq–Oseen equation for unsteady forces on a sphere in a compressible flow. Phys Rev Lett. 2011;106(8):084501

    2011

  31. [39]

    Pope, S. B. (2000). Turbulent flows. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840531

    2000 doi

  32. [40]

    Paquet, B., de Champlain, A., & Kalla, S. (2016). Review of fuel spray distributions to predict performance of rotary atomizers in a slinger gas turbine combustor. Atomization and Sprays, 26(5), 483–511

    2016

  33. [41]

    Schiller, L., & Naumann, A. (1933). Über die grundlegenden Berechnungen bei der Schwerkraftaufbereitung.Zeitschrift des Verei nes Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI-Z), 77, 318–320. 38

    1933

  34. [42]

    An experimental study of the collection of fog droplets using a mesh fabric: possible application to cooling towers

    Sontag DS and Saylor JR. An experimental study of the collection of fog droplets using a mesh fabric: possible application to cooling towers. J Energy Res Technol. 2016; 138: 1–4

    2016

  35. [43]

    https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2015.1104266

    2015

  36. [44]

    M., & Ritter, A

    Regalado, C. M., & Ritter, A. (2016). The design of an optimal fog water collector: A theoretical analysis. Atmospheric Resea rch. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2016.03.006

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    Tennekes, H., & Lumley, J. L. (1972). A first course in turbulence. MIT Press

    1972

  38. [46]

    Williamson, C. H. K. (1996). Vortex dynamics in the cylinder wake. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 28, 477–539. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fl.28.010196.002401

    1996

  39. [47]

    Renew Energy 119

    Talaat MA, Awad MM, Zeidan EB, Hamed AM (2018) Solar -powered portable apparatus for extracting water from air using desiccant solution. Renew Energy 119. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. renene. 2017. 12.050

    2018

  40. [48]

    Trenberth, K. E. (2011). Changes in precipitation with climate change. Climate Research, 47, 123–138 https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00953

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    Zhang, F., & Guo, Z. (2020). Bioinspired materials for water -harvesting: Focusing on microstructure designs and the improvement of sustainability. Materials Advances, 1, 2592–2613. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ma00599a

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Zong, L., & Nepf, H. M. (2012). Vortex development behind a finite porous obstruction in a channel. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 691, 368–391. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2011.479

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    Welch, P. (1967). The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 15(2), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAU.1967.1161901

    1967

  44. [52]

    L., 2006

    Yarin, A. L., 2006. Drop impact dynamics: Splashing, spreading, receding, bouncing . Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 38, 159 –192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.38.050304.092144

    2006

  45. [169]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.04.004

    2018 doi

  46. [355]

    https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jcis. 2010. 08. 047

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.