Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Confinement-Induced Suppression of Jet Drop Size by Bubble Bursting in Shallow Liquids

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A nearby solid wall in shallow liquids makes bursting bubbles produce smaller jet drops through viscous sticking.

desk verdict Numerical observation of smaller jet drops from wall viscous sticking in shallow bubble bursting, but no convergence or validation details provided to address artifact concerns. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.28609 v1 pith:JVDBMPB6 submitted 2026-06-26 physics.flu-dyn

Zhengyu Yang , Vatsal Sanjay , C. Ricardo Constante-Amores , Jie Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords bubbleburstingjetdropsshallowliquidsviscousstickingconfinementaerosolgenerationcapillarywavesOhnesorgenumber
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 shows that a shallow liquid layer leads to smaller and more numerous jet drops from bursting bubbles, even when the initial bubble shape stays the same. A wall-induced viscous sticking effect holds back the upward motion of the cavity bottom, which creates a steeper cavity shape at the time capillary waves focus to form the jet. The authors back this with numerical results and introduce a semi-empirical scaling law that gives the jet drop radius in terms of the Ohnesorge number and the bubble-to-wall distance. This matters for aerosol production in common settings such as thin films or shallow water where a solid boundary is close.

What carries the argument

Wall-induced viscous sticking effect that suppresses upward motion of the cavity bottom and produces steeper cavity geometry during wave focusing.

What would settle it

Direct high-speed imaging that measures cavity-bottom velocity or final jet drop size in controlled experiments with varying liquid depths but matched initial bubble shapes would show smaller drops in shallow cases if the mechanism holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Bubble bursting in shallow liquids produces smaller jet drops because a wall-induced viscous sticking effect suppresses the upward motion of the cavity bottom, resulting in a steeper cavity geometry during capillary-wave focusing. The effect persists even for fixed initial bubble shapes. A semi-empirical scaling law predicts the resulting jet drop radius from the Ohnesorge number and the initial bubble-wall distance.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical method and boundary conditions accurately capture the viscous interaction between the fluid and the nearby wall.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Jet drops become smaller and more numerous under geometric confinement.
  • The scaling law gives drop radius directly from viscosity measure and wall distance.
  • Geometric confinement becomes a controllable factor for aerosol output.
  • Prediction and control of drop sizes become possible in shallow-layer systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Aerosol models for oceans or thin coatings may need to include bottom-boundary distance as a variable.
  • Varying liquid depth while holding bubble shape fixed would provide a clean experimental test of the scaling.
  • The sticking mechanism could appear in other confined jetting flows such as inkjet printing or microfluidic breakup.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents numerical simulations of bubble bursting in shallow liquid layers. It claims that a nearby solid boundary produces smaller and more numerous jet drops than in deep pools, even with identical initial bubble shapes. The proposed mechanism is a wall-induced viscous sticking effect that suppresses upward motion of the cavity bottom, yielding a steeper cavity geometry at the moment of capillary-wave focusing. A semi-empirical scaling law is introduced that expresses the resulting jet-drop radius in terms of the Ohnesorge number and the initial bubble-wall distance.

Significance. If the numerical results are free of discretization artifacts, the work identifies geometric confinement as a controlling parameter in jet-drop formation and supplies a predictive scaling relation for aerosol generation in shallow-liquid settings. Such a relation would be useful for modeling sea-spray, industrial bubbling, and related multiphase processes. The identification of the viscous-sticking mechanism, if confirmed, adds a concrete physical picture to an otherwise geometry-driven phenomenon.

major comments (3)
  1. [Numerical Methods] Numerical Methods (presumably §2 or equivalent): the manuscript provides no grid-convergence study or boundary-layer resolution test demonstrating that the reported viscous sticking and cavity-bottom suppression survive systematic refinement. Because the effect is localized in a thin viscous layer whose thickness scales with local time, under-resolution or scheme-induced damping near the no-slip wall could produce the observed drop-size reduction as an artifact.
  2. [Scaling law] Scaling-law derivation (presumably §4 or Results): the semi-empirical relation for drop radius is stated to depend on Oh and bubble-wall distance, yet no information is given on whether the functional form and fitted coefficients were obtained from the same data set used to demonstrate the effect, nor whether an independent validation set or cross-validation was performed. This raises a circularity concern for the predictive claim.
  3. [Results] Validation against experiment: the central claim that shallow-layer bursting yields measurably smaller drops rests entirely on the simulations; no quantitative comparison with existing or new experimental data for confined geometries is reported, leaving open whether the viscous-sticking mechanism is reproduced under laboratory conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction should explicitly state the range of Oh and dimensionless wall distances explored so that the domain of the scaling law is clear.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for cavity-shape and velocity-field plots should indicate the grid spacing used in the wall region and whether the fields are instantaneous or time-averaged.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major point below, indicating revisions to the manuscript where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical Methods] Numerical Methods (presumably §2 or equivalent): the manuscript provides no grid-convergence study or boundary-layer resolution test demonstrating that the reported viscous sticking and cavity-bottom suppression survive systematic refinement. Because the effect is localized in a thin viscous layer whose thickness scales with local time, under-resolution or scheme-induced damping near the no-slip wall could produce the observed drop-size reduction as an artifact.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating numerical convergence is essential, particularly for the thin viscous layer near the wall. In the revised manuscript we will add a grid-convergence study (including successive refinements and boundary-layer resolution checks) showing that the cavity-bottom suppression, jet-drop statistics, and viscous-sticking mechanism remain unchanged under refinement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Scaling law] Scaling-law derivation (presumably §4 or Results): the semi-empirical relation for drop radius is stated to depend on Oh and bubble-wall distance, yet no information is given on whether the functional form and fitted coefficients were obtained from the same data set used to demonstrate the effect, nor whether an independent validation set or cross-validation was performed. This raises a circularity concern for the predictive claim.

    Authors: The functional form was motivated by viscous-boundary-layer scaling arguments prior to fitting. In the revision we will explicitly document the derivation steps, the data used for coefficient determination, and any separation into fitting versus validation subsets, together with quantitative measures of predictive accuracy on held-out cases. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Validation against experiment: the central claim that shallow-layer bursting yields measurably smaller drops rests entirely on the simulations; no quantitative comparison with existing or new experimental data for confined geometries is reported, leaving open whether the viscous-sticking mechanism is reproduced under laboratory conditions.

    Authors: The present work is a numerical investigation whose primary goal is to identify the confinement mechanism and the associated scaling. Direct quantitative experimental validation for shallow-layer geometries is not included and would require new laboratory measurements that lie outside the scope of this study. In the revision we will add a dedicated discussion comparing the scaling predictions against existing deep-pool experiments and outlining testable signatures for future shallow-layer experiments. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on numerical identification of a wall-induced viscous sticking effect and the subsequent development of a semi-empirical scaling law expressed in terms of Ohnesorge number and bubble-wall distance. No equations, fitting procedures, or self-citations are exhibited in the provided text that reduce the reported predictions or scaling law to tautological re-statements of the input simulation data or prior author results. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks, with the scaling law presented as an independent organizing relation rather than a direct re-labeling of fitted outputs.

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

Only the abstract is available; the ledger is therefore incomplete and cannot list specific fitted parameters, axioms, or invented entities with evidence from the manuscript.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confinement-Induced Suppression of Jet Drop Size by Bubble Bursting in Shallow Liquids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JVDBMPB6

@misc{pith2026260628609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confinement-Induced Suppression of Jet Drop Size by Bubble Bursting in Shallow Liquids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JVDBMPB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.28609}
}
read the original abstract

Bubble bursting is a major source of aerosol generation in a wide range of natural and industrial systems. While the resulting jet dynamics have been extensively studied in deep liquid pools, bubble bursting often occurs in shallow liquid layers where the influence of the nearby solid boundary remains poorly understood. Here, we show numerically that a shallow liquid layer produces smaller and more numerous jet drops, even when the initial bubble shape is unchanged. We identify a wall-induced viscous sticking effect that suppresses the upward motion of the cavity bottom, leading to a steeper cavity geometry during capillary-wave focusing. We further develop a semi-empirical scaling law that predicts the jet drop radius as a function of the Ohnesorge number and the initial bubble-wall distance. Our results establish geometric confinement as a governing factor in bubble bursting and provide a framework for predicting and controlling aerosol generation in shallow liquid environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28609 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of the initial simulation setup of bubble bursting in a shallow layer. Top: a bubble resting at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (b). The results demonstrate that for sufficiently small h0 such as h0 = 0.1, the viscous effect remains im￾portant for the sticking at the cavity bottom in the whole range of Oh. Therefore, the sticking is mainly influenced by h0 instead of Oh. Reducing h0 limits the upward mo￾tion of the liquid surface at the cavity bottom, further influencing the jet formation process. Equation (3) also implies that the coefficie… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Wave position angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Regime map of jet drop generation in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Self-similar Worthington jets

    physics.flu-dyn 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Bursting bubbles form self-similar Worthington jets with radius ~τ^0.63, so inertia dominates capillarity and water yields O(1) nm aerosols.

  2. Bubble bursting in a sessile droplet

    physics.flu-dyn 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A sessile droplet's curved free surface and confinement lower the Laplace-number threshold for Worthington-jet droplet emission and produce smaller, faster jets than an infinite liquid bath.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J. C. Bird, R. De Ruiter, L. Courbin, and H. A. Stone, Daughter bubble cascades produced by folding of rup- tured thin films, Nature465, 759 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    J. Feng, M. Roch´ e, D. Vigolo, L. N. Arnaudov, S. D. Stoyanov, T. D. Gurkov, G. G. Tsutsumanova, and H. A. Stone, Nanoemulsions obtained via bubble-bursting at a compound interface, Nat. Phys.10, 606 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    Veron, Ocean spray, Annu

    F. Veron, Ocean spray, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.47, 507 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

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

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

    2022

  5. [5]

    Bourouiba, Fluid dynamics of respiratory infectious diseases, Annu

    L. Bourouiba, Fluid dynamics of respiratory infectious diseases, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng.23, 547 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Bourouiba, The fluid dynamics of disease transmission, Annu

    L. Bourouiba, The fluid dynamics of disease transmission, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.53, 473 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    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,et al., The role of jet and film drops in controlling the mixing state of submicron sea spray aerosol particles, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.114, 6978 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Y. S. Joung and C. R. Buie, Aerosol generation by rain- drop impact on soil, Nat. Comm.6, 6083 (2015)

    2015

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Y. S. Joung, Z. Ge, and C. R. Buie, Bioaerosol generation by raindrops on soil, Nat. Commun.8, 1 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Bashkatov, F

    A. Bashkatov, F. B¨ urkle, C ¸ . Demirkır, W. Ding, V. San- jay, A. Babich, X. Yang, G. Mutschke, J. Czarske, D. Lohse,et al., Electrolyte droplet spraying in h2 bub- bles during water electrolysis under normal and micro- gravity conditions, Nat. Comm.16, 4580 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    N. V. Upot, A. Mahvi, K. Fazle Rabbi, J. Li, A. M. Jacobi, and N. Miljkovic, Scalable and resilient etched metallic micro-and nanostructured surfaces for enhanced flow boiling, ACS Appl. Nano Mater.4, 6648 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Cuadros, Y

    J. Cuadros, Y. Rivera, C. Berna, A. Escriv´ a, J. Mu˜ noz- Cobo, G. Monr´ os-Andreu, and S. Chiva, Characteriza- tion of the gas-liquid interfacial waves in vertical up- ward co-current annular flows, Nucl. Eng. Des.346, 112 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Y. Zhou, B. Ji, C. Zhao, H. Bo, Y. Zhang, and H. Li, Role of bubble dynamics in heat and mass transfer in annular flows, Int. J. Therm. Sci.191, 108348 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Deike, E

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

    2018

  7. [15]

    C. F. Brasz, C. T. Bartlett, P. 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

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    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. Fluids8, 073606 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Singh and A

    D. Singh and A. K. Das, Numerical investigation of the collapse of a static bubble at the free surface in the pres- ence of neighbors, Phys. Rev. Fluids4, 023602 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    C. G. Lee, S. Y. Lee, C.-T. Ha, and J. H. Lee, Bursting jet in two tandem bubbles at the free surface, Phys. Fluids 34(2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Aur´ egan, N

    T. Aur´ egan, N. Daniel, M. Mazzatenta, and L. Deike, Jet drop production from bubbles with neighbors, Phys. Rev. Fluids11, 043601 (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    Basilisk,http://basilisk.fr/

  14. [22]

    Sanjay, D

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

    2021

  15. [23]

    Krishnan, B

    S. Krishnan, B. A. Puthenveettil, and E. J. Hopfinger, Dynamics of collapse of free-surface bubbles: effects of gravity and viscosity, J. Fluid Mech.980, A36 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Z. Mou, Z. Zheng, Z. Jian, C. Antonini, C. Josserand, and M.-J. Thoraval, Singular jets and entrapments from compound drop impact, Phys. Rev. Fluids11, 013602 (2026)

    2026

  17. [25]

    Krishnan, E

    S. Krishnan, E. J. Hopfinger, and B. A. Puthenveettil, On the scaling of jetting from bubble collapse at a liquid surface, J. Fluid Mech.822, 791 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Gordillo and J

    J. Gordillo and J. Rodr´ ıguez-Rodr´ ıguez, Capillary waves control the ejection of bubble bursting jets, J. Fluid Mech.867, 556 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    F. J. Blanco-Rodr´ ıguez and J. Gordillo, On the jets pro- duced by drops impacting a deep liquid pool and by bursting bubbles, J. Fluid Mech.916, A37 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    J. R. Blake, A note on the image system for a stokeslet in a no-slip boundary, Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 70, 303 (1971)

    1971

  21. [29]

    Happel and H

    J. Happel and H. Brenner,Low Reynolds Number Hy- drodynamics(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1983)

    1983

  22. [30]

    Ma¨ es, A

    P.-A. Ma¨ es, A. Amirfazli, and C. Josserand, Birth of a bubble: drop impact onto a thin liquid film for an im- miscible three-fluid system, J. Fluid Mech

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.