Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electrostatic phase separation: A review

Open access
Mhatre, S., Vivacqua, V., Ghadiri, M., Abdullah, A.M., Al-Marri, M.J., Hassanpour, A., Hewakandamby, B., Azzopardi, B., Kermani, B.·2015·Chemical Engineering Research and Design

Abstract

The current understanding and developments in the electrostatic phase separation are reviewed. The literature covers predominantly two immiscible and inter-dispersed liquids following the last review on the topic some 15 years. Electrocoalescence kinetics and governing parameters, such as the applied field, liquid properties, drop shape and flow, are considered. The unfavorable effects, such as chain formation and partial coalescence, are discussed in detail. Moreover, the prospects of microfluidics platforms, non-uniform fields, coalescence on the dielectric surfaces to enhance the electrocoalescence rate are also considered. In addition to the electrocoalescence in water-in-oil emulsions the research in oil-in-oil coalescence is also discussed. Finally the studies in electrocoalescer development and commercial devices are also surveyed. The analysis of the literature reveals that the use of pulsed DC and AC electric fields is preferred over constant DC fields for efficient coalescence; but the selection of the optimum field frequency a priori is still not possible and requires further research. Some recent studies have helped to clarify important aspects of the process such as partial coalescence and drop–drop non-coalescence. On the other hand, some key phenomena such as thin film breakup and chain formation are still unclear. Some designs of inline electrocoalescers have recently been proposed; however with limited success: the inadequate knowledge of the underlying physics still prevents this technology from leaving the realm of empiricism and fully developing in one based on rigorous scientific methodology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cherd.2015.02.012

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 57 references

Cited by

See all 257

Metadata

Authors
Mhatre, S., Vivacqua, V., Ghadiri, M., Abdullah, A. M., Al-Marri, M. J., Hassanpour, A., Hewakandamby, B., Azzopardi, B., & Kermani, B.
Venue
Chemical Engineering Research and Design
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
96
Pages
177-195
ISSN
0263-8762 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129648138
Cited by
257
References
57
FWCI
17.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Electrostatic phase separation: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cherd.2015.02.012
The paper
Mhatre, S., Vivacqua, V., Ghadiri, M., Abdullah, A. M., Al-Marri, M. J., Hassanpour, A., Hewakandamby, B., Azzopardi, B., & Kermani, B. (2015). Electrostatic phase separation: A review. Chemical Engineering Research and Design. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2015.02.012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.