ReviewACS engineering Au2022
Modeling of Hydrodynamic Cavitation Reactors: Reflections on Present Status and Path Forward.
Review in ACS engineering Au, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Simplified Droplet Breakage Model to Simulate Continuous Emulsification by Hydrodynamic Cavitation.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Numerical modelling and experimental validation of an orifice plate-based hydrodynamic cavitation process for improving the biomass pretreatment.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Methyl Orange Degradation Using Ag-Doped TiOACS omega · 2025Article
- Numerical simulation of cavitation-vortex interaction mechanism in an advanced rotational hydrodynamic cavitation reactor.Ultrasonics sonochemistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hydrodynamic cavitation (HC) is finding ever increasing applications in water, energy, chemicals, and materials sectors. HC generates intense shear, localized hot spots, and hydroxyl radicals, which are harnessed for realizing desired physicochemical transformations. Despite identification of HC as one of the most promising technology platforms, its potential is not yet adequately translated in practice. Lack of appropriate models for design, optimization, and scale-up of HC reactors is one of the primary reasons for this. In this work, the current status of modeling of HC reactors is presented. Various prevailing approaches covering empirical, phenomenological, and multiscale models are critically reviewed in light of personal experience of their application. Use of these approaches for different applications such as biomass pretreatment and wastewater treatment is briefly discussed. Some comments on extending these models for other applications like emulsions and crystallization are included. The presented models and discussion will be useful for practicing engineers and scientists interested in applying HC for a variety of applications. Some thoughts on further advances in modeling of HC reactors and outlook are shared, which may stimulate further research on improving the fidelity of computational models of HC reactors.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.