Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42328504›Full record

ReviewACS engineering Au2026

Flow Modeling, Reactor Engineering, and Process Intensification: From Insight to Performance.

Vivek V Ranade

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS engineering Au, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Vivek V RanadeMultiphase Reactors and Process Intensification Group Bernal Institute, University of Limerick, V94T9PX Limerick, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0558-6971

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flow modeling, reactor engineering, and process intensification (PI) have played a major role in shaping modern chemical engineering practice. Early work in flow modeling focused on the use of computational models to visualize flow fields and improve the design of process equipment. During this period, reactor engineering increasingly relied on flow modeling to optimize reactor geometry and internals across scales. The growing emphasis on PI, through strategies such as transforming batch operations into continuous ones, employing structured reactors or alternative energy sources, and enhancing driving forces, further accelerated the development and integration of these approaches. In this perspective, critical process metrics (CPMs) are presented as a useful framework for connecting flow modeling, reactor engineering, and PI and translating mechanistic insight into performance. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) and hybrid physics-ML models provide tools to address distributions, variability, and scale dependence of CPMs, and to relate them to critical quality and performance attributes (CQAs and CPAs). Anchoring models to measurable fingerprints and embedding them within decision frameworks (that account for uncertainty) can enable the convergence of flow modeling, reactor engineering, and PI toward robust and scalable product and process excellence.

Indexed as

CFDcritical process metricsMLmultiphase flowsprocess and product excellence

Identifiers

PMID42328504
PMCPMC13281380

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.