Review Topical Sections

Multiscale modeling, coarse-graining and shock wave computer simulations in materials science

  • My intention in this review article is to briefly discuss several major topics of presentday computational materials science in order to show their importance for state-of-the-art materials modeling and computer simulation. The topics I discuss are multiscale modeling approaches for hierarchical systems such as biological macromolecules and related coarse-graining techniques, which provide an efficient means to investigate systems on the mesoscale, and shock wave physics which has many important and interesting multi- and interdisciplinary applications in research areas where physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, medicine and even engineering meet. In fact, recently, as a new emerging field, the use of coarse-grained approaches for the simulation of biological macromolecules such as lipids and bilayer membranes and the investigation of their interaction with shock waves has become very popular. This emerging area of research may contribute not only to an improved understanding of the microscopic details of molecular self-assembly but may also lead to enhanced medical tumor treatments which are based on the destructive effects of High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) or shock waves when interacting with biological cells and tissue; these are treatments which have been used in medicine for many years, but which are not well understood from a fundamental physical point of view.

    Citation: Martin O. Steinhauser. Multiscale modeling, coarse-graining and shock wave computer simulations in materials science[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(6): 1319-1357. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.6.1319

    Related Papers:

    [1] Leilei Wei, Xiaojing Wei, Bo Tang . Numerical analysis of variable-order fractional KdV-Burgers-Kuramoto equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(4): 1263-1281. doi: 10.3934/era.2022066
    [2] E. A. Abdel-Rehim . The time evolution of the large exponential and power population growth and their relation to the discrete linear birth-death process. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(7): 2487-2509. doi: 10.3934/era.2022127
    [3] Li-Bin Liu, Ying Liang, Jian Zhang, Xiaobing Bao . A robust adaptive grid method for singularly perturbed Burger-Huxley equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(4): 1439-1457. doi: 10.3934/era.2020076
    [4] Li Tian, Ziqiang Wang, Junying Cao . A high-order numerical scheme for right Caputo fractional differential equations with uniform accuracy. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(10): 3825-3854. doi: 10.3934/era.2022195
    [5] Bidi Younes, Abderrahmane Beniani, Khaled Zennir, Zayd Hajjej, Hongwei Zhang . Global solution for wave equation involving the fractional Laplacian with logarithmic nonlinearity. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(9): 5268-5286. doi: 10.3934/era.2024243
    [6] Jun Pan, Yuelong Tang . Two-grid -Galerkin mixed finite elements combined with scheme for nonlinear time fractional parabolic equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7207-7223. doi: 10.3934/era.2023365
    [7] Jingyun Lv, Xiaoyan Lu . Convergence of finite element solution of stochastic Burgers equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(3): 1663-1691. doi: 10.3934/era.2024076
    [8] Jun Liu, Yue Liu, Xiaoge Yu, Xiao Ye . An efficient numerical method based on QSC for multi-term variable-order time fractional mobile-immobile diffusion equation with Neumann boundary condition. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 642-666. doi: 10.3934/era.2025030
    [9] Nelson Vieira, M. Manuela Rodrigues, Milton Ferreira . Time-fractional telegraph equation of distributed order in higher dimensions with Hilfer fractional derivatives. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(10): 3595-3631. doi: 10.3934/era.2022184
    [10] Ping Zhou, Hossein Jafari, Roghayeh M. Ganji, Sonali M. Narsale . Numerical study for a class of time fractional diffusion equations using operational matrices based on Hosoya polynomial. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(8): 4530-4548. doi: 10.3934/era.2023231
  • My intention in this review article is to briefly discuss several major topics of presentday computational materials science in order to show their importance for state-of-the-art materials modeling and computer simulation. The topics I discuss are multiscale modeling approaches for hierarchical systems such as biological macromolecules and related coarse-graining techniques, which provide an efficient means to investigate systems on the mesoscale, and shock wave physics which has many important and interesting multi- and interdisciplinary applications in research areas where physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, medicine and even engineering meet. In fact, recently, as a new emerging field, the use of coarse-grained approaches for the simulation of biological macromolecules such as lipids and bilayer membranes and the investigation of their interaction with shock waves has become very popular. This emerging area of research may contribute not only to an improved understanding of the microscopic details of molecular self-assembly but may also lead to enhanced medical tumor treatments which are based on the destructive effects of High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) or shock waves when interacting with biological cells and tissue; these are treatments which have been used in medicine for many years, but which are not well understood from a fundamental physical point of view.


    Fighting hunger and poverty and ensuring sustainable agriculture and food security is a major global issue. Future food security is a major concern, especially as the world's population grows. Studies show that the world's population will grow to more than 10 billion people by 2050, a significant increase of 34% [1]. This population growth brings socioeconomic impacts and challenges related to food production, supply, and security that require further studies. Recognizing the many factors contributing to increased hunger and malnutrition is important. By 2050, feeding a larger, urbanized population will require 60%–70% of global food production [2]. In the future, there will be increased pressure to utilize natural resources for food production efficiently. Soil, water, and air are resources that need sustainable management. However, around 25% of arable land is deemed unproductive and unfit for agriculture due to soil mismanagement, degradation, climate change, urbanization, and industrialization [3]. Nonetheless, crop and animal production remain essential for food security.

    Some literature has long acknowledged the importance of urban and rural agriculture to human health and well-being [4,5,6]. The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic highlighted the critical role that access to nature plays daily [7,8]. The demand for stay-at-home recommendations due to COVID-19 has resulted in social distancing and restriction of movement, disrupted farming activities, and a sharp rise in the use of parks and gardens. These spaces have the potential to significantly contribute to community resilience to future environmental, health, or economic challenges, as well as recovery from food insecurity posed by COVID-19, given the widespread recognition of their value [9,10,11].

    A positive outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic has been an increased emphasis on the aspects of life—including values—that have the most significance for individuals. Underlying value dilemmas have emerged due to the epidemic, prompting criticism from certain societal segments and highlighting the urgent need to address this crisis to meet global challenges. The global food system is a value-laden domain where we all seek security and stability [12]. The most recent issue that led to a rise in urban farming and gardening was the COVID-19 epidemic. Pandemic-related problems led to an increase in local food production, including early shortages in supermarkets [13,14], concerns about the pandemic's potential effects on commercial food systems [15], and free time from working from home and furloughs [16].

    Urban agriculture has undoubtedly proven beneficial to mental health during the lockdowns, relieving social isolation and improving the mood and sense of community. Lades et al. [17] discovered that time spent outdoors was associated with markedly raised positive emotional effects and reduced negative emotions for a sample in Ireland in March 2020. Gardening was one of five outdoor activities related to the most significant benefits. One of the main reasons people got involved in urban agriculture was the potential for gardens to support health and well-being. Some adopted urban agriculture to relieve stress and support mental health [18]. Corley et al. [19] and Sunga & Advincula [20] discovered that time spent in a garden improved physical, emotional, and mental health. Bu et al. [21] observed that gardening improved mental health and well-being during the UK's March–May lockdown period. According to Pouso et al. [22], who employed an online poll across nine countries, the lockdown had a major negative influence on people's mental health, but access to outdoor space helped them deal with these effects. An online indoor micro-gardening initiative that offered users in China social and emotional support throughout the epidemic was described by Wang et al. [23].

    The opportunity to raise fresh food for domestic use was a major driving force behind urban agriculture. Before COVID-19, metropolitan areas were finding it challenging to meet the rising demand from growing populations [24]. The pandemic also brought to light the vulnerability of supply networks and the effect that labour shortages had on harvests and food processing [25]. It reaffirmed the idea that urban fresh produce farming with shorter supply chains might help to create a local supply chain that is more robust and sustainable [26]. For individual families, having access to fruits and vegetables helped to lessen food shortages brought on by early pandemic consumer hoarding. Growing food was also considered a way to help the growing number of households experiencing food insecurity due to the pandemic's economic effects. During lockdown, gardeners from racially and ethnically diverse groups used their growing spaces to produce foods acceptable for their culture despite supply chain disruptions [27].

    Soilless farming is a method of growing crops without using soil, either in a solid media culture or a water culture, where the plants are artificially given nutrients to support their growth and development. Being a controlled system, soilless farming also allows for the management of various pressures, both biotic and abiotic. This strategy has several socioeconomic benefits in addition to the ability to address the growing global food crises, malnutrition, and the effective use and management of natural resources, all of which contribute to preserving ecological sustainability and the year-round availability of a sufficient and hygienic food supply. It is an excellent crop-growing strategy for all countries with limited farmland, a constantly shifting climate, and developing food insecurity issues with their indigenous populations [28].

    While reducing the difficulties associated with soil, soilless culture could likely function as a beneficial cropping system to address the current and future scarcity of arable land and water in surrounding cities [29]. Crop yield and quality are generally increased by soilless cultivation. Additionally, it prevents soil culture problems like soil-limited arable land that subsequently fails to meet the needs of the current human population [30]. It has been noted that using additional spaces for crop production for urban horticulture, in particular, increases overall food production through soilless culture [31].

    The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Organization (FAO) has defined food security as ensuring that all people have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs for an active and healthy life [32]. The availability of food stocks in desired quantities is critical to food security, relying on transportation, storage infrastructure, and market integration [33]. The FAO and the World Bank have prioritized eradicating hunger and poverty as international goals, with a target deadline of 2015 [34]. Consequently, re-awakening the need for urban agriculture, which has emerged as a concept to supplement the disruption in the food supply chain, is necessary.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has aggravated food insecurity in urban centres because of the disruption in the food supply chain, aggravation of the physical and economic barriers that restrict access to food, and the catastrophic increase in food waste because of labour shortages. Thus, there is a need to adopt more resilient food production systems, reduce food waste, and strengthen local food production. Enhancing availability at the household and community levels through home gardening and urban agriculture is an important strategy [25]. Urban agriculture has a role in addressing urban food insecurity issues, which will only become more relevant with the secular trend of poverty and population urbanization in developing countries. Food security, poverty reduction, and economic growth are intertwined and reliant on agricultural advancements, requiring strategies that concentrate on helping small-scale farmers' food production and incomes, most notably the urban people with limited land access [35]. Consequently, urban agriculture remains a technique that city dwellers continue to use in their search for long-term food stability. Food security will not be wholly realized until adequate steps are implemented to assist urban farmers in getting the most out of urban agriculture [36]. The main objective is to give a comprehensive account of the importance of urban agriculture, specifically using soilless farming techniques by systematically reviewing various emerging planting systems to meet the needs of people living in urban areas and ensure food security and environmental protection. Furthermore, this review aims to determine different conventional, advanced, and modern soilless farming techniques to grow sustainable agriculture and food security. This review was carried out to draw together the information currently in the literature to address these questions:

    ⅰ. What is the role of urban agriculture in ensuring food security in the post-pandemic era?

    ⅱ. What are the key soilless systems and their effectiveness on sustainable urban agriculture?

    ⅲ. What are the most important soilless technology techniques for food security?

    ⅳ. What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of soilless technologies in promoting sustainable agriculture?

    Using the PRISMA technique, a thorough evaluation of the literature on urban agriculture after the pandemic was carried out for the study. The review was carried out using the PRISMA declaration, which recommends conducting systematic reviews [37,38,39]. A defined and strict set of guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews is known as the PRISMA statement [40]. A systematic search approach was implemented to access scholarly articles regarding soilless farming techniques for sustainable urban agriculture. This involved selecting a suitable database, utilizing specific keywords for the search, collecting relevant reference materials, and conducting content analysis. The findings of the review were subsequently conveyed through the use of descriptive statistics.

    The identification process increases the importance of the keywords chosen because it increases the possibility of finding more relevant articles for the review [41,42]. We chose the methodology for the literature study because it enables lucid and transparent systematic reviews. The Scopus database and Google Scholar search engine were utilized to obtain 78 English-language papers published between 2008 and 2024. Conference papers and academic papers published in peer-reviewed journals were chosen using a specific search technique based on a PICO (Problem, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) approach [43]. The information on urban agriculture and sustainable cropping systems laid the foundation for the search strategy. The search utilized a combination of keywords such as "alternative cropping system", "urban agriculture", "urban farming", "post-pandemic", "post COVID-19 pandemic", "soilless technology", "urban gardening", "urban farming", "backyard farming", "sustainable, cropping system", and "sustainable agriculture".

    Articles that were conference papers, books, non-English articles, or duplicates were excluded from the final selection. Articles that met the inclusion criteria at various stages were considered for analysis. The methodology, results, and discussion sections were carefully reviewed to determine their suitability in addressing the research questions. This represented a total of 78 articles. Only articles published between 2008 and 2024 were considered for inclusion. Academic publications published in peer-reviewed journals were chosen as they undergo a rigorous review procedure by subject matter experts. This procedure guarantees that the study techniques and results adhere to scholarly requirements [44].

    Table 1.  Inclusion criteria for screening.
    Criterion Eligibility Exclusion
    Types of Literature Scholarly articles Chapter in a book, books, conference proceedings
    language Choice English language Other languages
    Time Range 2008–2024 2007 and earlier
    Country Global
    Types of Agriculture Urban agriculture

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The detailed analysis of the 119 articles that passed the initial screening phase thoroughly examined their abstracts, primary features, and outcomes. This review concentrates explicitly on soilless farming techniques and post-pandemic food security. Consequently, no studies diverging from this theme were included, leading to the exclusion of 41 articles. The remaining 78 articles met all the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into this analysis. The PRISMA flowchart utilized in this systematic review is depicted in Figure 1.

    Figure 1.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

    The initial articles subjected to review were released in 2008, and throughout the period spanning 2008–2024, only 2009 and 2015 required more published papers. Notably, there was a notable surge in publications from 2008 to 2022, as illustrated in Figure 2. Among these years, 2022 emerged as the most prolific, boasting 13 articles, closely trailed by 2020 with 12 articles. This heightened publication trend could be attributed to the prevalence of research topics focusing on sustainable urban agriculture in the post-pandemic context.

    Figure 2.  Distribution of articles by year of publication.

    The research methodology used in the reviewed articles was also examined. Scrutinizing the methodology provides valuable insights into how various research questions were approached. The reviewed articles employed multiple methods, including quantitative, qualitative, and a combination of both, known as mixed methods. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of articles based on their chosen methodology. Notably, most of the reviewed articles favoured using qualitative methods, totalling 41 articles. Closely following, a quantitative methodology was employed in 31 articles, while only one article utilized the mixed methods approach.

    Figure 3.  Research distribution by methodology.

    Following the initial evaluation of the examined articles, six significant themes emerged. These thematic areas comprised the role of urban agriculture, soilless farming technology, water management, hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponics. These identified themes serve as the foundation for our subsequent discussion.

    Urban farming and soilless techniques are vital, addressing challenges and aiding sustainable food systems in the post-pandemic period. A Tokyo study by Iida et al. [45] shows that urban agriculture was linked to well-being, physical activity, and food security during COVID-19. Access to local food, from self-cultivation to direct sales, relates significantly to health. Allotment farms outperform parks in well-being and surpass food retailers in addressing food security. In walkable areas, urban farming enhances outdoor activities for communities, benefiting health. It also boosts food system resilience by providing local food during global disruptions. According to Lal [25], urban food production includes vertical farming, interior and rooftop gardens, small-scale home farming, and local community gardens. During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, home gardening can significantly improve food and nutritional security while bolstering several ecological services (i.e., plant biodiversity, microclimate, water runoff, water quality, and human health). There is no doubt that home gardening has a positive impact on people's physical, emotional, and social well-being [46] and is important in lowering household food expenses [47].

    Colson-Fearon & Versey [48] conducted a thorough qualitative interview in Baltimore, USA, with 15 community stakeholders. According to the study, urban farming is essential for environmental and community sustainability. The respondents discussed sustainability in general terms: growing food responsibly (i.e., causing the least damage to natural resources) and utilizing farming's advantages for the environment. Awasom [49] concluded that urban food gardens offer wholesome, fresh food that reduces hunger and enhances the health and welfare of the neighborhood—plus, any extra product may be sold to generate additional revenue. In addition to lowering carbon emissions and improving urban environmental quality, food gardens are valuable hubs for networking, community building, and empowerment.

    In Zulfiqar et al. [50], the aspects of urban agriculture that may be connected to Pakistani urban inhabitants' food security were examined. The study concluded that factors influencing urban agriculture, which improves food security, include the availability of resources and the desire of urban residents for fresh food. According to the analysis by Ilieva et al. [51], there has been an increase in research on the social effects of gardens and farms. Most of these studies have focused on how these spaces affect community cohesion and engagement. Other findings include higher consumption and availability of fruits and vegetables, which are linked to improved health and decreased food insecurity.

    The study by Steenkamp et al. [52] is a significant discovery from this review that may address the function of soilless technology and urban agriculture in guaranteeing food security. Using a multiple-case study approach, the research examined four Global South best practice examples of urban agriculture to identify its potential to mitigate risks related to food security and support sustainable development goals. Based on the results, there is potential to use urban agriculture's multifunctionality to address other urban concerns, including unemployment, community decline, and food deserts, in addition to enhancing the food security of the most vulnerable populations. The study also demonstrated how urban agriculture can help achieve goals related to sustainable development.

    One practically realistic solution to address the growing food demand of cities is through vertical farming, where not only do pesticides disappear, but there are also almost no nutrient emissions. Considering that a kilogram of product requires only 2–4 L of water on average, this may save enormous quantities. Vertical techniques generate less waste and require less space and resources for product distribution. Furthermore, the controlled environment of an indoor farm guarantees consistently high production volumes with consistent quality every day of the year, regardless of weather, climate change, or location, in addition to allowing for a significant improvement in quality (taste, flavour, appearance, shelf life, nutritional value, and safety) [53,54,55].

    Zhang et al. [56] claimed that vertical farming uses land efficiently and is environmentally sustainable, contributing to world food security. Enhancements that would enable a better product to be produced while using less water and enhancing its safety would be possible when combined with film farming. Eaves & Eaves [57] conducted a cost-benefit analysis based on a hypothetical farm and found that for film farming integration to be feasible, a yield increase of 27,247 kg (43.57%) and a price point of $9.67/kg (26.90% increase) is required. A study on plants grown under water stress, comparable to what would be caused by film farming, revealed smaller leaves and lower plant yields but improved nutrient contents. The findings could indicate that integrating film farming into vertical farming is feasible since it can offer improvements in plant quality required to command a premium price or the required increase in yield [56].

    According to de Bang et al. [58], one benefit of vertical farming is preventing growth deficits through ongoing monitoring. This enables the early identification of nutrient shortages and ongoing fertilization plan adjustment. This, in turn, necessitates a fundamental comprehension of how plant nutrients function and are transported, which frequently makes most nutritional deficits visually diagnosable.

    In addition to providing a source of fresh produce, rooftop gardening supports the sustainability of urban environments and offers comprehensive ecosystem services. According to Thapa et al. [59], it is highly significant and contributes financially to soft advantages like food production, stormwater retention, air quality, and carbon sequestration.

    As mentioned, soilless farming methods offer significant promise for securing food post-pandemic. We have specifically examined how these methods impact urban agriculture. This study focused on three key factors: environmental impact, efficient resource use, and water conservation. Table 3 displays articles that thoroughly analyzed how soilless technology affects urban agriculture using these criteria.

    As indicated in Table 2, soilless methods offer various benefits, including positive effects on the environment, efficient use of resources, and water conservation. Hydroponics, for instance, has the potential to save 85%–90% of water [60,61,65]. Moreover, Gautam et al. [60] claimed that soilless media such as aeroponics saves up to 85%–90% of water, as it is recycled and provides better yield than conventional cultivation with almost zero environmental pollution. According to El-Kazzaz & El-Kazzaz [61], providing fertilizers in precise amounts tailored to plant needs contributes to the efficient use of resources in soilless technology. Additionally, soilless culture uses almost recycled fixed quantities of water and saves at least 90% of irrigated water. Most vegetable crops thrive and produce more in soilless agriculture than in conventional agriculture. Joshi et al. [64] discovered that soilless farming increases yields by precisely managing factors like nutrients, pH, oxygen, carbon dioxide, light, and temperature. This enhanced output can offset the initial and ongoing costs of soilless farming. Vegetables grown in soilless systems are high-quality and need minimal washing. According to Arumugam et al. [62], soilless farming using a closed-loop system offers significant benefits besides reclaiming arable land. It can recycle 85%–90% of irrigation water, resulting in improved space and water management and higher yields than traditional farming, showing promising global results.

    Table 2.  Soilless technology for sustainable agriculture.
    S/N Author (year) Technology Environmental impact Resource efficiency Water usage and conservation
    1 [60] Hydroponics and aeroponics Zero environmental pollution Grow a large number of crops in one generation Saving of water up to 85%–90%
    2 [61] Hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponics Protect against irrational use of fertilizer Highest productivity Save not less than 90% of irrigated water
    3 [62] Hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponics Improved space and water management Highest productivity Save 85%–90% of the water used for irrigation
    4. [63] Hydroponics Microbe-free, control of climate and pest factors Efficient use of water and fertilizers, as well as a better use of space. 1/10th­–1/5th of the water used in soil cultivation saved
    5 [64] Hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponics Soil diseases, salinity, and inefficiencies in resource utilization Boosts yield by precisely controlling plant development components Irrigation water is precisely managed using a minimal amount of water
    6 [65] Hydroponics Land scarcity, salinity issues, and competition for land and water resources Successfully growing almost every vegetable crop and having the highest productivity. Saves 90% of irrigation water
    7 [66] Hydroponics Produces high yields within limited space The lettuce produced used 90 L of water, compared to 103 L used by lettuce on traditional soil for 40 days.
    8 [67] Hydroponics Energy efficient Responsible consumption and production Maximum water conservation.
    9 [68] Hydroponics Paper pots can replace those made of plastic, resulting in significant savings in greenhouse gas emissions and fossil resource consumption.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The growing medium, pots, electricity use, raw material transportation, and product deliveries are the hydroponic system components with the most significant ecological effects, according to Martin & Molin [68]. Paper pots can be used instead of plastic ones, significantly reducing the use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. The use of coconut fibre in place of traditional garden soil enables more ecologically friendly crop cultivation.

    Other sectors compete for scarce water, including urban demands, the industrial sector, and the agricultural sector, which utilize more than two-thirds of all freshwater globally [69]. In the United States, more than 85% of the nation's total freshwater consumption is used by the agricultural sector, making it the largest consumer of water in the country [70]. One of the major agricultural problems is the need for freshwater [71].

    Urban agriculture has a huge potential to produce 100–180 million tons of food yearly while offering a variety of ecological benefits. Additionally, it might help prevent stormwater runoff, save energy, and sequester nitrogen. Urban agriculture could produce economic benefits worth up to $160 billion annually under high-intensity urban agriculture worldwide [72]. Water competition between urban and agricultural usage results from rising urban water demand, mainly sharing a local water supply source [73]. Therefore, efforts are required to ensure sustainable water use, such as maximizing water use and water treatment, implementing a circular water economy in agriculture, and reducing the adverse effects of climate change on water resources. This could be achieved by exploring innovative agricultural production technologies.

    This study identified three crucial soilless technologies: hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponics. These technologies have the potential to contribute to and ensure sustainable food security. The subsequent section will delve into their significance and emerging trends.

    In worldwide food production, hydroponic growing systems present a chance to complement, if not completely replace, traditional soil-based growth systems. Some advantages of hydroponic growing systems include the capacity to adjust circumstances to maximum production in limited space, the limiting of water waste (recirculation), and crops grown in controlled environments (regulation of pests, nutrients, and qualities essential for optimal plant growth) (vertical gardens) [74]. Sardare & Admane [75] claim that because the worldwide urban concrete conglomerate is expanding daily, there is no other choice but to use agricultural methods like hydroponics, which will increase the produce's output and quality and assist secure food security on a global scale. According to Rani et al. [76], soil-based agriculture currently suffers from low yield and quality because of factors like urbanization, climate change, natural catastrophes, and the careless use of pesticides and herbicides, all decreasing land fertility. Thus, because hydroponic farming produces high-quality food and manages resources well, it is becoming increasingly popular worldwide.

    Sharma et al. [77] emphasized numerous advantages associated with hydroponic systems, such as quicker crop growth than traditional methods, year-round production, minimal susceptibility to diseases and pests, and eliminating tasks like weeding, spraying, and watering. They concluded that the nutrient film technique (NFT) has been utilized globally to cultivate leafy greens and other vegetables, resulting in water savings ranging from 70% to 90%. Countries noteworthy in hydroponic technology include the Netherlands, Australia, France, England, Israel, Canada, and the USA. The successful adoption of commercial hydroponic technology necessitates the development of cost-effective, easy-to-operate and maintain techniques, requiring less labour and lower overall setup and operational costs, according to the investigation by Velazquez-Gonzalez et al. [78] on using hydroponics in small-scale urban farming. The study found that hydroponics is versatile and customizable for personal and small businesses. Technological advances, like automation and data processing, enhance urban agriculture's efficiency, resource management, and productivity.

    Recent advancements in hydroponics involve merging hydroponics with smart technology in farming. According to Rajaseger et al. [79], this novel system shows promise for efficient and eco-friendly crop production. It eliminates the need for soil, reduces water usage by delivering nutrients directly to plant roots, and utilizes smart farming techniques with IoT, sensors, and automation. This technology monitors soil conditions, nutrient levels, and plant vitality, allowing precise management and optimization. The tech-driven approach enhances crop yield, accelerates growth rates, and maintains ideal conditions year-round, regardless of weather or other environmental factors. Smart farming also reduces reliance on organic chemicals, promotes eco-friendly pest management, and minimizes waste. This innovative strategy has the potential to revolutionize agriculture, encouraging localized food production, improving food security, and fostering more resilient farming practices. Recently, mainstream adoption has seen the integration of innovative technologies like smart home tech (domotics), IoT automated growing methods, and AI-based systems in indoor hydroponic setups [80].

    Rajaseger et al. [79] divided hydroponic systems into soilless-solution culture and granular-substrate culture hydroponics. However, this study found that most articles identified five types of hydroponic systems [76,77,79]. Table 3 provides a brief description of these hydroponic types.

    Table 3.  Types of hydroponics.
    Hydroponics type Description Reference
    Nutrient film technique (NFT) In this system, a nutrient mix moves through a pump, reaching the growth tray. It employs a tank and an automatic pump to supply nutrients and water. In NFT setups, plant roots stay in a thin layer of nutrient water, taking what they need. Extra liquid is gathered and reused. The system is tilted so the nutrient mix flows over the roots and returns to the tank. [76,77,79]
    Deep-water culture In hydroponic deep-water culture, plant roots hang in nutrient-rich water, getting air from an air stone. The hydroponics bucket system is a classic example. Plants in net pots grow fast with roots in a nutrient solution. [77,78]
    Ebb and flow system The ebb and flow system, or flood and drain, is a commercial hydroponics method that uses the flood and drain principle. This method pumps water and nutrients from a reservoir to nourish plants. This low-maintenance and affordable setup has gained popularity. [77,78]
    Drip system Drip hydroponics is a popular method for growing plants at home or in businesses. A pump sends a balanced mix of water and nutrients from the reservoir to each plant's roots. [77]
    Wick system Simple hydroponic setups, called wick systems, use a basic design. Plants sit in a non-active growing medium, and a cotton rope (wick) moves nutrient solution from a reservoir to the roots. Plants, often in materials like coco coir, vermiculite, or perlite, have a nylon wick drawing solution from a reservoir. Capillary action supplies water or nutrients. This system suits small plants and herbs but could be more effective for high-water-demand plants. [78,79]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Sharma et al. [77] observed that a hydroponics system can cultivate various plants, crops, and vegetables. Finished goods' quality, flavour, and nutritional content are typically better than naturally soil-based agriculture. According to several experimental results, leafy greens (lettuce, spinach, parsley, celery, and Atriplex, among others) can be successfully cultivated in hydroponic systems. Due to their faster growth and capacity for nitrogen uptake, lettuce and spinach are the most promising species to be grown in integrated hydroponics and aquaculture systems. As indicated in Table 4, [77] and [79] investigated various crop varieties that might be cultivated hydroponically.

    Table 4.  Crops grown under hydroponics.
    Type of crops Common name
    Cereal Rice, maize
    Fruits Strawberry
    Vegetables Tomato, chilli, brinjal, green bean, beet, winged bean, bell pepper, cucumbers, melons, green onion, radish, cucumber, cauliflower, bell pepper, cabbage
    Leafy vegetables Lettuce, spinach, celery, Swiss chard, Atriplex
    Condiments Coriander leaves, methi, parsley, mint, sweet basil
    Flower/ornamental crops Marigold, roses, carnations, chrysanthemum
    Medicinal crops Indian aloe, coleus
    Fodder crops Sorghum, Alfa alfa, Bermuda grass, carpet grass
    Source: Sharma et al. [77], Rajaseger et al. [79].

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Plants need a growing medium to support their roots, providing structure and oxygen. Various hydroponic systems use different growing media with unique qualities. Examples include sand, brick shards, vermiculite, perlite, gravel, rock wool, sawdust, and polyethene sheeting [81]. Growing plants without soil allows researchers to explore alternative media. There are numerous options, such as rockwool, perlite, coco peat, and sand. Each has pros and cons, and the choice depends on factors like porosity, water retention, and cation exchange capacity [82].

    The study [82] displayed the average percentage of various vegetable crops hydroponically grown under various substrate media, with sand substrate serving as a control. Perlite is the ideal medium or substrate. The research results are displayed in Table 5.

    Table 5.  The percentage potential yield for different hydroponic soilless media as compared with sand as the control substrate.
    Substrate Potential yield %
    Perlite 112
    Sand 100
    Perlite and peat (1:1) 106
    Sand and peat (1:1) 106
    Sand, peat, and perlite (1:1:1) 109
    Rockwool 107
    Coco peat 105
    Source: AlShrouf [82].

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Aquaponics is a growing way to produce food that combines fish farming and hydroponic plant growth. It combines aquaculture and hydroponics, creating a new approach to traditional fish farming. These systems use closed-loop water systems where fish and plants grow together, which could help address environmental issues linked to regular fish farming and agriculture. The plants absorb essential nutrients (N and P) from fish metabolism and bacterial activity [83]. Reusing water can reduce environmental impact by using less water. While common soil pollutants do not affect crops in these systems, there are concerns about different contamination types, like the spread of diseases through fish waste in water. Challenges arise in combining fish and crop growth due to variations in growth rates, nitrogen uptake efficiency, costs, and energy needs [84].

    A method to reduce the environmental impact of food production, the distance food travels, and the ensuing food, energy, and water implications that will be needed to support the world's expanding urban population is through aquaponics protein and plant production. The technology could be applied to small-scale farming in low-income nations, industrial-scale production in rural areas, commercial or community-based urban food production, educational institutions, and architectural beautification projects [85]. Even though aquaponics food production is projected to feed a growing worldwide population, several environmental concerns should be carefully considered before deciding if aquaponics is a game-changing technology for sustainability. Simultaneously, the environment is sufficiently maintained [86].

    According to Maucieri et al. [87], aquaponics systems can be grouped based on how nutrients reach plant roots. Two main groups are 1) systems without substrate, like NFT and floating raft systems, and 2) medium-based systems using the substrate for root anchorage and microorganisms. In addition, aquaponics can also be classified by hydroponic beds, including media-based grow bed (MGB), deep-water culture (DWC) with floating rafts, and NFT using a channel with streaming water. Their study suggests that DWC and NFT are good options for large-scale commercial adoption [88].

    According to Gosh & Chowdhury [88], the selection of plant species adapted to hydroponic culture in aquaponic greenhouses is related to the stocking density of fish tanks and subsequent nutrient concentration of aquacultural effluent. Lettuce, herbs, and especially greens (spinach, chives, basil, and watercress) have low-to-medium nutritional requirements and are well adapted to aquaponics systems. Plants yielding fruit (tomatoes, bell peppers, and cucumbers) have a higher nutritional demand and perform better in a heavily stocked, well-established aquaponic system. Greenhouse varieties of tomatoes are better adapted to low light and high humidity conditions in greenhouses than field varieties.

    Aeroponics is a method in which plant roots hang in a sealed container, receiving nutrient-rich water mist from sprayers. The plant's upper part stays above the mist zone. Using pressure nozzles, this setup encourages rapid growth in controlled conditions [89].

    According to the study of Lakhiar et al. [90], air-growing culture reduced damage and promoted significant growth compared to soil, sand, or aerated water culture. The atomization spray in aeroponics allows for measuring nutrient absorption over time and under various conditions. In this system, plant roots hang in a plastic holder with foam instead of soil under controlled conditions. Roots dangle freely in the air, receiving nutrient-rich water through atomization nozzles, intermittently or continuously creating a mist of different droplet sizes.

    The primary discoveries from this examination indicate that, based on the research conducted by [91,92,93], aeroponics emerges as an effective system for cultivating potatoes. Aeroponics is a soilless farming method for areas with poor soil and water conditions. In this system, plant roots hang in the air, supported by foam or plastic, and nutrient solution is sprayed through nozzles. This review explores aeroponics to enhance potato farming in developing nations [91]. Moreover, Chiipanthenga et al. [93] discovered that traditional methods for producing potato seeds are ineffective in preventing pathogen buildup, resulting in lower-quality seeds and poor crop yields. In contrast, using aeroponics for meristem culture and tuberization quickly produces high-quality, pathogen-free potato seeds. Aeroponic multiplication of these seeds complements tissue culture (micropropagation) by rapidly cloning mini tubers, reducing labour steps when transferring plantlets from tissue culture to the field after the flask stage.

    Aeroponics grows veggies without soil. Roots hang in containers with nutrient mist, ensuring optimal oxygen and moisture. This method boosts plant nutrition absorption and accelerates plant growth. Aeroponic systems are easy to use; plants are separated and suspended, making harvest straightforward. Vegetables like potatoes, yams, tomatoes, lettuce, and leafy greens are commercially grown using aeroponics [94]. Aeroponics works well commercially for growing crops like potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, and ginger—however, more knowledge about using aeroponics for staple foods such as rice is needed. Understanding genetics, nutrition, and technology challenges is crucial for future large-scale food production [95].

    Garzón et al. [96] analyzed the incorporation of advanced technologies in aeroponics. The research highlights that sensing technology and Industry 4.0 are the predominant technologies in aeroponics, offering various advantages such as enhanced sustainability and time efficiency. According to Kumari and Kumar [97], there are two types of aeroponic systems: low-pressure units and high-pressure devices. In low-pressure systems, plant roots hang above a nutrient solution reservoir or channel that a pump supplies through jets or ultrasonic transducers. Due to cost, these units lack purification features and are suitable for small-scale growth or demonstrations. High-pressure devices use mist generated by high-pressure pumps and are typically employed for high-value crop cultivation. This method integrates air and water purification technologies, nutrient sterilization, low-mass polymers, and pressurized nutrient delivery systems.

    To delve deeper into the potential of soilless technologies emerging trends in crop cultivation in fostering sustainable urban agriculture and serving as a pivotal element in ensuring food security post-pandemic, this study further investigates critical findings related to these techniques. Given the dynamic nature and non-uniformity of results in articles, the study identifies key factors such as the type of soilless technique, the media/substrate utilized, the crop studied, and the research outcomes. Additionally, the articles are categorized based on their contributions to sustainable urban agriculture, focusing on aspects like environmental impact, resource efficiency, yield productivity, and water conservation. Table 6 provides an overview of the articles reviewed in this section.

    Table 6.  Key findings on soilless technology.
    S/N Author (Year) Soilless technology Crop Media/substrate Sustainable urban agriculture impact Key findings
    1 [98] Hydroponic Gypsophila Sawdust, river sand, and vermiculite Resource efficiency For the hydroponics culture of gypsophila, sawdust should be used as a growing medium.
    2 [99] Hydroponic Spinach Sawdust Resource efficiency Sawdust shows the highest physiological parameters
    3 [100] Hydroponic Pakchoi and lettuce Cocopeat, sponge, and perlite Resource efficiency Cocopeat performed better than sponge and perlite
    4 [101] Hydroponic Lettuce NFT Yield productivity NFT hydroponic system of lettuce plants was 6%–10% more efficient than the floating raft system and DFT
    5 [102] Hydroponic Tomato NFT Environmental Impact The AP/NFT system is viable for the production of greenhouse tomatoes, enabling the environment to be relieved by lessening rock wool usage.
    6 [103] Hydroponic Tomato Perlite Environmental Impact Direct leachate recirculation was the most environmentally friendly option in terms of global warming.
    7 [104] Hydroponic Lettuce Nutrient solution Water conservation and environmental impact Results show that it is possible to operate hydroponic systems using treated wastewater.
    8 [105] Aquaponics Lettuce Builders grade and gravel Resource efficiency Higher head weight and yield in builders' grade sand
    9 [106] Aquaponics Lettuce Crushed stone and flexible polyurethane Yield productivity Polyurethane foam resulted in higher concentrations of macro- and micronutrients.
    10 [107] Aquaponics Lettuce Nutrient solution Water conservation The hydroponic component in the aquaponic system is used as a biofilter and effectively manages water quality.
    11 [108] Aquaponics Pumpkin Palm kernel shells, aka PKS and Periwinkle shells Yield productivity and water conservation Pumpkin performed better in the palm kernel shell and periwinkle shell
    12 [109] Aeroponics Lettuce Not specified Resource efficiency and yield productivity Results showed that aeroponics remarkably improved the root growth of lettuce.
    13 [110] Aeroponics Cannabis sativa Not specified Yield productivity and environmental impact Results conclude that aeroponics facilitates easy harvesting of Cannabis sativa
    14 [111] Aeroponics Lily tresor Not specified Water conservation Compared to other systems, only 10% and 20% of the water used to produce Lily Tresor was used.
    15 [112] Aeroponics Lettuce Not specified Water conservation, resource efficiency, and yield productivity Saves up to 80% water in lettuce production

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Oladimeji et al. [108] tested agricultural wastes (palm kernel shells and Periwinkle shells) as growth beds for pumpkin plants. The study also tried gravel and a mix of gravel with shells. Results showed better pumpkin growth in the shell media, with improved vine length, leaf area, number of leaves, branches, and biweekly yield. The gravel substrate performed the worst. Water quality and nitrogen reduction across the system and different grow beds indicated that mixing all substrates improved water quality for fish and plant growth. Ferrini et al. [110] examined bioactives in C. sativa root extracts—β-sitosterol, stigmasterol, campesterol, friedelin, and epi-friedelanol. They used aeroponic (AP) and aeroponic-elicited cultures (AEP), comparing them to soil-cultivated plants (SP). AP and AEP significantly increased root growth and boosted bioactive molecules (up to 20-fold for β-sitosterol). Aeroponics, an easy and contaminant-free technique, enhances root harvesting, producing more secondary bioactive for health-related products.

    Vera-Puerto et al. [111] evaluated the use of treated wastewater for growing cut flowers using aeroponics in arid climates. The results revealed that aeroponics used 10%–20% less water to produce Lily Tresor than other cultivation systems, demonstrating efficient water use by aeroponics. Other studies in this review also examined how soilless technologies affect the environment and support sustainable urban farming for food security. A survey by Dannehl et al. [102] explored a hybrid aeroponic/nutrient film technique (AP/NFT) system for growing greenhouse tomatoes. The plants in this system were more compact and accumulated more Na+ but less P and S than those grown in rock wool. Various plant parameters showed no significant differences. The AP/NFT system seemed viable for greenhouse tomato production, reducing the environmental impact by decreasing the use of rock wool.

    Rufí-Salís et al. [103] analyzed three nutrient recovery methods for urban hydroponics—direct leachate recirculation (DLR), chemical precipitation (CP), and membrane filtration (MF). They assessed the environmental performance using a life cycle approach, focusing on recovering phosphorus (P), magnesium, potassium, and calcium in hydroponic tomato cultivation. Results showed that DLR was the most environmentally friendly option regarding global warming, with significantly lower impacts than CP and MF. All three alternatives had less eutrophication potential than the baseline scenario, which assumed P discharge into the environment. Using recovered nutrients met the crop's nutritional needs, saving 44%–52% of global warming impacts compared with new fertilizers, especially with DLR and MF. On the contrary, CP slightly increased global warming impact because it could only recover P and part of the magnesium.

    According to Chen et al. [113], aquaponics and hydroponics have a comparative advantage with the same design. Aquaponics had 45% less environmental impact than hydroponics. Both systems were affected mainly by electricity use for heating, lighting, water pumping, fish feed, and fertilizer production. Switching from coal to wind power could make hydroponics eco-friendlier than aquaponics. Moreover, Fussy & Papenbrock [114] compared hydroponics and aquaponics, noting the challenge in comparison due to system differences. Aquaponics construction is more labour- and cost-intensive, with stages for fish wastewater treatment and habitat. Despite this, aquaponics has advantages like lower fertilizer costs. In aquaponics, pH and nitrogen levels are monitored less frequently due to natural balancing, showing better water-use efficiency. Aquaponics performed better regarding resource efficiency and environmental impact in the two studies.

    According to AlShrouf [82], aeroponics and hydroponics use nutrient-rich water in distinct ways. Hydroponics uses a different medium (not soil) to give plants water with nutrients, while aeroponics uses a misting system. Aeroponics is efficient for vertical growing and space use. Both systems control quality, health, and quantity. Hydroponics uses only 10% of water compared to traditional methods. Aeroponics saves water, too, spraying nutrient-rich solution on roots for maximum nutrient absorption. Aeroponics needs constant monitoring, while hydroponics is user-friendly. Table 8 shows the comparisons between these soilless technologies by other authors.

    Table 8.  Comparative advantages and disadvantages of the three soilless technologies.
    Soilless technologies Advantages Disadvantages Reference
    Hydroponics Low initial costs, reusability of nutrient solution, low probability of blockages Transfer of nutrient solution between plants leading to transfer of disease between plants, high investment costs [66] [Fussy]
    Aquaponics Efficient water and nutrient use, no fertilizers required Maintenance effort, risk of algae growth, risk of diseases, etc., power/pump failures, sufficient oxygenation [114]
    Aeroponics Reduction of water consumption by up to 98%, fertilizer use by up to 60%, and pesticide use by almost 100%, higher growth rates, fewer food miles and reduced carbon footprint, no fertilizer runoff into waterways It requires more monitoring and maintenance, has a single purpose, is not readily adaptable for vastly different crop types, and requires technical expertise. [115,116]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In today's era, innovative methods like vertical gardening, hydroponics, aeroponics, aquaponics, and rooftop gardening enhance urban farming systems such as indoor planting, community gardens, edible landscapes, and home gardens. These modern approaches ensure a steady supply of fresh produce to city neighbourhoods, bolstering food security while being eco-friendly and energy-efficient. Following the PRISMA guideline, a thorough review systematically analyzed existing literature on emerging urban farming techniques, particularly those utilizing soilless technology. The review identified three prominent soilless technologies: hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics. Furthermore, it explored how other urban farming methods like vertical farming, urban gardening, and rooftops contribute to sustainable agriculture. Moreover, the review scrutinized articles on soilless technology, focusing on their environmental impact, resource efficiency, and water usage as criteria for sustainable agriculture. Notably, the findings underscored that urban agriculture, especially with soilless technology, can conserve up to 80%–90% of water, ensuring sustainability and bolstering food security, especially during pandemics. Additionally, the review examined various vegetables and crops suitable for cultivation using these techniques. However, further research is imperative with the ongoing expansion of soilless culture systems in greenhouses. Each cultivation method offers distinct advantages supporting urban agriculture and food security.

    The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    The authors thank Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris for the University Research Grants and their support during the manuscript's preparation.

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Monsuru Adekunle Salisu: Title, study design and writing; Yusuf Opeyemi Oyebamiji: Literature review and data collection; Omowunmi Kayode Ahmed: Wiring of methodology and figure and tables illustration; Noraziyah A Shamsudin: Proofreading and editing; Yusoff Siti Fairuz: Formatting of the manuscript; Oladosu Yusuff: Proofreading and editing; Mohd Rafii Yusop: Relevant literature search; Zulkefly Sulaiman: Proofreading and editing; Fatai Arolu: Technical check, reference check and final formatting.

    [1] Phillips RR (2001) Crystals, defects and microstructures: Modeling across scales, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [2] Yip S (2005) Handbook of materials modeling, Berlin: Springer.
    [3] Steinhauser MO (2017) Computational Multiscale Modeling of Fluids and Solids-Theory and Applications, 2nd Edition, Berlin: Springer.
    [4] McNeil PL, Terasaki M (2001) Coping with the inevitable: how cells repair a torn surface membrane. Nat Cell Biol 3: E124–E129. doi: 10.1038/35074652
    [5] Schmidt M, Kahlert U, Wessolleck J, et al. (2014) Characterization of a setup to test the impact of high-amplitude pressure waves on living cells. Sci Rep 4: 3849.
    [6] Gambihler S, Delius M, Ellwart JW (1992) Transient increase in membrane permeability of L1210 cells upon exposure to lithotripter shock waves in vitro. Naturwissenschaften 79: 328–329. doi: 10.1007/BF01138714
    [7] Gambihler S, Delius M, Ellwart JW (1994) Permeabilization of the plasma membrane of L1210 mouse leukemia cells using lithotripter shock waves. J Membrane Biol 141: 267–275.
    [8] Kodama T, Doukas AG, Hamblin MR (2002) Shock wave-mediated molecular delivery into cells. BBA-Mol Cell Res 1542: 186–194.
    [9] Bao G, Suresh S (2003) Cell and molecular mechanics of biological materials. Nat Mater 2: 715–725. doi: 10.1038/nmat1001
    [10] Tieleman DP, Leontiadou H, Mark AE, et al. (2003) Simulation of Pore Formation in Lipid Bilayers by Mechanical Stress and Electric Fields. J Am Chem Soc 125: 6382–6383. doi: 10.1021/ja029504i
    [11] Sundaram J, Mellein BR, Mitragotri S (2003) An Experimental and Theoretical Analysis of Ultrasound-Induced Permeabilization of Cell Membranes. Biophys J 84: 3087–3101. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(03)70034-4
    [12] Doukas AG, Kollias N (2004) Transdermal drug delivery with a pressure wave. Adv Drug Deliver Rev 56: 559–579. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2003.10.031
    [13] Coussios CC, Roy RA (2008) Applications of Acoustics and Cavitation to Noninvasive Therapy and Drug Delivery. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 40: 395–420. doi: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.40.111406.102116
    [14] Prausnitz MR, Langer R (2008) Transdermal drug delivery. Nat Biotechnol 26: 1261–1268. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1504
    [15] Ashley CE, Carnes EC, Phillips GK, et al. (2011) The targeted delivery of multicomponent cargos to cancer cells by nanoporous particle-supported lipid bilayers. Nat Mater 10: 389–397. doi: 10.1038/nmat2992
    [16] Koshiyama K, Wada S (2011) Molecular dynamics simulations of pore formation dynamics during the rupture process of a phospholipid bilayer caused by high-speed equibiaxial stretching. J Biomech 44: 2053–2058. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.05.014
    [17] Steinhauser MO (2016) On the Destruction of Cancer Cells Using Laser-Induced Shock-Waves: A Review on Experiments and Multiscale Computer Simulations. Radiol Open J 1: 60–75. doi: 10.17140/ROJ-1-110
    [18] Krehl POK (2009) History of Shock Waves, Explosions and Impact: A Chronological and Biographical Reference, Berlin: Springer.
    [19] Steinhauser MO, Schneider J, Blumen A (2009) Simulating dynamic crossover behavior of semiflexible linear polymers in solution and in the melt. J Chem Phys 130: 164902. doi: 10.1063/1.3111038
    [20] Rodriguez V, Saurel R, Jourdan G, et al. (2013) Solid-particle jet formation under shock-wave acceleration. Phys Rev E 88: 063011. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.88.063011
    [21] Zheng J, Chen QF, Gu YJ, et al. (2012) Hugoniot measurements of double-shocked precompressed dense xenon plasmas. Phys Rev E 86: 066406. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.86.066406
    [22] Falk K, Regan SP, Vorberger J, et al. (2013) Comparison between x-ray scattering and velocityinterferometry measurements from shocked liquid deuterium. Phys Rev E 87: 043112. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.87.043112
    [23] Brujan EA, Matsumoto Y (2014) Shock wave emission from a hemispherical cloud of bubbles in non-Newtonian fluids. J Non-Newton Fluid 204: 32–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jnnfm.2013.12.003
    [24] Iakovlev S, Iakovlev S, Buchner C, et al. (2014) Resonance-like phenomena in a submerged cylindrical shell subjected to two consecutive shock waves: The effect of the inner fluid. J Fluid Struct 50: 153–170. doi: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.05.013
    [25] Bringa EM, Caro A,Wang YM, et al. (2005) Ultrahigh strength in nanocrystalline materials under shock loading. Science 309: 1838–1841. doi: 10.1126/science.1116723
    [26] Kadau K, Germann TC, Lomdahl PS, et al. (2007) Shock waves in polycrystalline iron. Phys Rev Lett 98: 135701. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.135701
    [27] Knudson MD, Desjarlais MP, Dolan DH (2008) Shock-Wave Exploration of the High-Pressure Phases of Carbon. Science 322: 1822–1825. doi: 10.1126/science.1165278
    [28] Gurnett DA, Kurth WS (2005) Electron plasma oscillations upstream of the solar wind termination shock. Science 309: 2025–2027. doi: 10.1126/science.1117425
    [29] Gurnett DA, Kurth WS (2008) Intense plasma waves at and near the solar wind termination shock. Nature 454: 78–80. doi: 10.1038/nature07023
    [30] Dutton Z, Budde M, Slowe C, et al. (2001) Observation of quantum shock waves created with ultra-compressed slow light pulses in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Science 293: 663–668. doi: 10.1126/science.1062527
    [31] Damski B (2006) Shock waves in a one-dimensional Bose gas: From a Bose-Einstein condensate to a Tonks gas. Phys Rev A 73: 043601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.043601
    [32] Chang JJ, Engels P, Hoefer MA (2008) Formation of dispersive shock waves by merging and splitting Bose-Einstein condensates. Phys Rev Lett 101: 170404. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.170404
    [33] Millot M, Dubrovinskaia N, Černok A, et al. (2015) Planetary science. Shock compression of stishovite and melting of silica at planetary interior conditions. Science 347: 418–420.
    [34] Bridge HS, Lazarus AJ, Snyder CW, et al. (1967) Mariner V: Plasma and Magnetic Fields Observed near Venus. Science 158: 1669–1673. doi: 10.1126/science.158.3809.1669
    [35] McKee CF, Draine BT (1991) Interstellar shock waves. Science 252: 397–403. doi: 10.1126/science.252.5004.397
    [36] McClure S, Dorfmüller C (2002) Extracorporeal shock wave therapy: Theory and equipment. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2: 348–357.
    [37] Lingeman JE, McAteer JA, Gnessin E, et al. (2009) Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique. Nat Rev Urol 6: 660–670. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2009.216
    [38] Cherenkov PA (1934) Visible emission of clean liquids by action of gamma radiation. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 2: 451–454.
    [39] Mach E, Salcher P (1887) Photographische Fixirung der durch Projectile in der Luft eingeleiteten Vorgänge. Ann Phys 268: 277–291. doi: 10.1002/andp.18872681008
    [40] Kühn M, Steinhauser MO (2008) Modeling and simulation of microstructures using power diagrams: Proof of the concept. Appl Phys Lett 93: 034102. doi: 10.1063/1.2959733
    [41] Walsh JM, Rice MH (1957) Dynamic compression of liquids from measurements on strong shock waves. J Chem Phys 26: 815–823. doi: 10.1063/1.1743414
    [42] Asay JR, Chhabildas LC (2003) Paradigms and Challenges in Shock Wave Research, High-Pressure Shock Compression of Solids VI, New York: Springer-Verlag New York, 57–119.
    [43] Steinhauser MO, Grass K, Strassburger E, et al. (2009) Impact failure of granular materials-Nonequilibrium multiscale simulations and high-speed experiments. Int J Plasticity 25: 161–182. doi: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2007.11.002
    [44] Watson E, Steinhauser MO (2017) Discrete Particle Method for Simulating Hypervelocity Impact Phenomena. Materials 10: 379. doi: 10.3390/ma10040379
    [45] Holian BL, Lomdahl PS (1998) Plasticity induced by shock waves in nonequilibrium moleculardynamics simulations. Science 280: 2085–2088. doi: 10.1126/science.280.5372.2085
    [46] Kadau K, Germann TC, Lomdahl PS, et al. (2002) Microscopic view of structural phase transitions induced by shock waves. Science 296: 1681–1684. doi: 10.1126/science.1070375
    [47] Chen M, McCauley JW, Hemker KJ (2003) Shock-Induced Localized Amorphization in Boron Carbide. Science 299: 1563–1566. doi: 10.1126/science.1080819
    [48] Holian BL (2004) Molecular dynamics comes of age for shockwave research. Shock Waves 13: 489–495.
    [49] Germann TC, Kadau K (2008) Trillion-atom molecular dynamics becomes a reality. Int J Mod Phys C 19: 1315–1319. doi: 10.1142/S0129183108012911
    [50] Ciccotti G, Frenkel G, McDonald IR (1987) Simulation of Liquids and Solids, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    [51] Allen MP, Tildesley DJ (1987) Computer Simulation of Liquids, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
    [52] Liu WK, Hao S, Belytschko T, et al. (1999) Multiple scale meshfree methods for damage fracture and localization. Comp Mater Sci 16: 197–205. doi: 10.1016/S0927-0256(99)00062-2
    [53] Gates TS, Odegard GM, Frankland SJV, et al. (2005) Computational materials: Multi-scale modeling and simulation of nanostructured materials. Compos Sci Technol 65: 2416–2434. doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.06.009
    [54] Steinhauser MO (2013) Computer Simulation in Physics and Engineering, 1st Edition, Berlin: deGruyter.
    [55] Finnis MW, Sinclair JE (1984) A simple empirical N-body potential for transition metals. Philos Mag A 50: 45–55. doi: 10.1080/01418618408244210
    [56] Kohn W (1996) Density functional and density matrix method scaling linearly with the number of atoms. Phys Rev Lett 76: 3168–3171. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.3168
    [57] Car R, Parrinello M (1985) Unified approach for molecular dynamics and density-functional theory. Phys Rev Lett 55: 2471–2474. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.2471
    [58] Elstner M, Porezag D, Jungnickel G, et al. (1998) Self-consistent-charge density-functional tightbinding method for simulations of complex materials properties. Phys Rev B 58: 7260–7268. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.58.7260
    [59] Sutton AP, Finnis MW, Pettifor DG, et al. (1988) The tight-binding bond model. J Phys C-Solid State Phys 21: 35–66. doi: 10.1088/0022-3719/21/1/007
    [60] Szabo A, Ostlund NS (1996) Modern quantum chemistry: introduction to advanced electronic structure theory, (Dover Books on Chemistry), New York: Dover Publications.
    [61] Kadau K, Germann TC, Lomdahl PS (2006) Molecular dynamics comes of age: 320 billion atom simulation on BlueGene/L. Int J Mod Phys C 17: 1755–1761. doi: 10.1142/S0129183106010182
    [62] Fineberg J (2003) Materials science: close-up on cracks. Nature 426: 131–132. doi: 10.1038/426131a
    [63] Buehler M, Hartmaier A, Gao H, et al. (2004) Atomic plasticity: description and analysis of a onebillion atom simulation of ductile materials failure. Comput Method Appl M 193: 5257–5282. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2003.12.066
    [64] Abraham FF, Gao HJ (2000) How fast can cracks propagate? Phys Rev Lett 84: 3113–3116. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3113
    [65] Bulatov V, Abraham FF, Kubin L, et al. (1998) Connecting atomistic and mesoscale simulations of crystal plasticity. Nature 391: 669–672. doi: 10.1038/35577
    [66] Gross SP, Fineberg J, Marder M, et al. (1993) Acoustic emissions from rapidly moving cracks. Phys Rev Lett 71: 3162–3165. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.3162
    [67] Courant R (1943) Variational Methods for the Solution of Problems of Equilibrium and Vibrations. B Am Math Soc 49: 1–23.
    [68] Lucy LB (1977) A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. Astron J 82: 1013–1024. doi: 10.1086/112164
    [69] Cabibbo N, Iwasaki Y, Schilling K (1999) High performance computing in lattice QCD. Parallel Comput 25: 1197–1198. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8191(99)00045-9
    [70] Evertz HG (2003) The loop algorithm. Adv Phys 52: 1–66. doi: 10.1080/0001873021000049195
    [71] Holm EA, Battaile CC (2001) The computer simulation of microstructural evolution. JOM 53: 20–23.
    [72] Nielsen SO, Lopez CF, Srinivas G, et al. (2004) Coarse grain models and the computer simulation of soft materials. J Phys-Condens Mat 16: 481–512. doi: 10.1088/0953-8984/16/15/R03
    [73] Praprotnik M, Site LD, Kremer K (2008) Multiscale simulation of soft matter: From scale bridging to adaptive resolution. Annu Rev Phys Chem 59: 545–571. doi: 10.1146/annurev.physchem.59.032607.093707
    [74] Karimi-Varzaneh HA, Müller-Plathe F (2011) Coarse-Grained Modeling for Macromolecular Chemistry, In: Kirchner B, Vrabec J, Topics in Current Chemistry, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 326–321.
    [75] Müller-Plathe F (2002) Coarse-graining in polymer simulation: from the atomistic to the mesoscopic scale and back. Chem Phys Chem 3: 755–769.
    [76] Abraham FF, Broughton JQ, Broughton JQ, et al. (1998) Spanning the length scales in dynamic simulation. Comp Phys 12: 538–546. doi: 10.1063/1.168756
    [77] Abraham FF, Brodbeck D, Rafey R, et al. (1994) Instability dynamics of fracture: A computer simulation investigation. Phys Rev Lett 73: 272–275. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.272
    [78] Abraham FF, Brodbeck D, Rudge WE, et al. (1998) Ab initio dynamics of rapid fracture. Model Simul Mater Sc 6: 639–670. doi: 10.1088/0965-0393/6/5/010
    [79] Warshel A, LevittM(1976) Theoretical studies of enzymic reactions: Dielectric, electrostatic and steric stabilization of the carbonium ion in the reaction of lysozyme. J Mol Biol 103: 227–249.
    [80] Winkler RG, Steinhauser MO, Reineker P (2002) Complex formation in systems of oppositely charged polyelectrolytes: a molecular dynamics simulation study. Phys Rev E 66: 021802.
    [81] Dünweg B, Reith D, Steinhauser M, et al. (2002) Corrections to scaling in the hydrodynamic properties of dilute polymer solutions. J Chem Phys 117: 914–924. doi: 10.1063/1.1483296
    [82] Stevens MJ (2004) Coarse-grained simulations of lipid bilayers. J Chem Phys 121: 11942–11948. doi: 10.1063/1.1814058
    [83] Steinhauser MO (2005) A molecular dynamics study on universal properties of polymer chains in different solvent qualities. Part I. A review of linear chain properties. J Chem Phys 122: 094901.
    [84] Steinhauser MO, Hiermaier S (2009) A Review of Computational Methods in Materials Science: Examples from Shock-Wave and Polymer Physics. Int J Mol Sci 10: 5135–5216. doi: 10.3390/ijms10125135
    [85] Goetz R, Gompper G, Lipowsky R (1999) Mobility and elasticity of self-assembled membranes. Phys Rev Lett 82: 221–224. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.221
    [86] Lipowsky R (2004) Biomimetic membrane modelling: pictures from the twilight zone. Nat Mater 3: 589–591. doi: 10.1038/nmat1208
    [87] Lyubartsev AP (2005) Multiscale modeling of lipids and lipid bilayers. Eur Biophys J 35: 53–61. doi: 10.1007/s00249-005-0005-y
    [88] Orsi M, Michel J, Essex JW (2010) Coarse-grain modelling of DMPC and DOPC lipid bilayers. J Phys-Condens Mat 22: 155106. doi: 10.1088/0953-8984/22/15/155106
    [89] Steinhauser MO (2012) Introduction to Molecular Dynamics Simulations: Applications in Hard and Soft Condensed Matter Physics, InTech.
    [90] Alberts B, Bray D, Johnson A, et al. (2000) Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4 Edition, New York: Garland Science, Taylor and Francis Group.
    [91] Steinhauser MO, Steinhauser MO, Schmidt M (2014) Destruction of cancer cells by laserinduced shock waves: recent developments in experimental treatments and multiscale computer simulations. Soft Matter 10: 4778–4788. doi: 10.1039/C4SM00407H
    [92] Tozzini V (2004) Coarse-grained models for proteins. Curr Opin Struc Biol 15: 144–150.
    [93] Ayton GS, Noid WG, Voth GA (2007) Multiscale modeling of biomolecular systems: in serial and in parallel. Curr Opin Struc Biol 17: 192–198. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2007.03.004
    [94] Forrest LR, Sansom MS (2000) Membrane simulations: bigger and better? Curr Opin Struc Biol 10: 174–181. doi: 10.1016/S0959-440X(00)00066-X
    [95] Woods CJ, Mulholland AJ (2008) Multiscale modelling of biological systems. RSC Special Periodicals Report: Chemical Modelling, Applications and Theory 5: 13–50. doi: 10.1039/b608778g
    [96] Steinhauser MO (editor) (2016) Special Issue of the Journal Materials: Computational Multiscale Modeling and Simulation in Materials Science. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials/special issues/modeling and simulation.
    [97] Brendel W (1986) Shock Waves: A New Physical Principle in Medicine. Eur Surg Res 18: 177–180. doi: 10.1159/000128523
    [98] Wang CJ (2003) An overview of shock wave therapy in musculoskeletal disorders. Chang Gung Med J 26: 220–232.
    [99] Wang ZJZ, DesernoM (2010) A systematically coarse-grained solvent-free model for quantitative phospholipid bilayer simulations. J Phys Chem B 114: 11207–11220. doi: 10.1021/jp102543j
    [100] Wang ZB, Wu J, Fang LQ, et al. (2011) Preliminary ex vivo feasibility study on targeted cell surgery by high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Ultrasonics 51: 369–375. doi: 10.1016/j.ultras.2010.11.002
    [101] Wang S, Frenkel V, Zderic V (2011) Optimization of pulsed focused ultrasound exposures for hyperthermia applications. J Acoust Soc Am 130: 599–609. doi: 10.1121/1.3598464
    [102] Paul W, Smith GD, Yoon DY (1997) Static and dynamic properties of an-C100H202 melt from molecular dynamics simulations. Macromolecules 30: 7772–7780. doi: 10.1021/ma971184d
    [103] Kreer T, Baschnagel J, Mueller M, et al. (2001) Monte Carlo Simulation of long chain polymer melts: Crossover from Rouse to reptation dynamics. Macromolecules 34: 1105–1117. doi: 10.1021/ma001500f
    [104] Krushev S, Paul W, Smith GD (2002) The role of internal rotational barriers in polymer melt chain dynamics. Macromolecules 35: 4198–4203. doi: 10.1021/ma0115794
    [105] Bulacu M, van der Giessen E (2005) Effect of bending and torsion rigidity on self-diffusion in polymer melts: A molecular-dynamics study. J Chem Phys 123: 114901. doi: 10.1063/1.2035086
    [106] Kratky O, Porod G (1949) Röntgenuntersuchung gelöster Fadenmoleküle. Recl Trva Chim Pays-Bas 68: 1106–1122.
    [107] Doi M, Edwards SF (1986) The Theory of Polymer Dynamics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [108] Harris RA, Hearst JE (1966) On Polymer Dynamics. J Chem Phys 44: 2595–2602. doi: 10.1063/1.1727098
    [109] Hearst JE, Harris RA (1967) On Polymer Dynamics. III. Elastic Light Scattering. J Chem Phys 46: 398–398.
    [110] Harnau L, Winkler RG, Reineker P (1997) Influence of stiffness on the dynamics of macromolecules in a melt. J Chem Phys 106: 2469–2476. doi: 10.1063/1.473154
    [111] Harnau L, WInkler RG, Reineker P (1999) On the dynamics of polymer melts: Contribution of Rouse and bending modes. EPL 45: 488–494. doi: 10.1209/epl/i1999-00193-6
    [112] Steinhauser MO (2008) Static and dynamic scaling of semiflexible polymer chains-a molecular dynamics simulation study of single chains and melts. Mech Time-Depend Mat 12: 291–312. doi: 10.1007/s11043-008-9062-9
    [113] Guenza M (2003) Cooperative dynamics in semiflexibile unentangled polymer fluids. J Chem Phys 119: 7568–7578. doi: 10.1063/1.1606674
    [114] Piran T (2004) Statistical Mechanics of Membranes and Interfaces, 2 edition, World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc.
    [115] Schindler T, Kröner D, Steinhauser MO (2016) On the dynamics of molecular self-assembly and the structural analysis of bilayer membranes using coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations. BBA-Biomembranes 1858: 1955–1963. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2016.05.014
    [116] Brannigan G, Lin LCL, Brown FLH (2006) Implicit solvent simulation models for biomembranes. Eur Biophys J 35: 104–124. doi: 10.1007/s00249-005-0013-y
    [117] Chang R, Ayton GS, Voth GA (2005) Multiscale coupling of mesoscopic- and atomistic-level lipid bilayer simulations. J Chem Phys 122: 244716. doi: 10.1063/1.1931651
    [118] Huang MJ, Kapral R, Mikhailov AS, et al. (2012) Coarse-grain model for lipid bilayer selfassembly and dynamics: Multiparticle collision description of the solvent. J Chem Phys 137: 055101. doi: 10.1063/1.4736414
    [119] Pandit SA, Scott HL (2009) Multiscale simulations of heterogeneous model membranes. BBA-Biomembranes 1788: 136–148. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2008.09.004
    [120] Farago O (2003) "Water-free" computer model for fluid bilayer membranes. J Chem Phys 119: 596–605. doi: 10.1063/1.1578612
    [121] Brannigan G, Philips PF, Brown FLH (2005) Flexible lipid bilayers in implicit solvent. Phys Rev E 72: 011915. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.72.011915
    [122] Yuan H, Huang C, Li J, et al. (2010) One-particle-thick, solvent-free, coarse-grained model for biological and biomimetic fluid membranes. Phys Rev E 82: 011905. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.82.011905
    [123] Noguchi H (2011) Solvent-free coarse-grained lipid model for large-scale simulations. J Chem Phys 134: 055101. doi: 10.1063/1.3541246
    [124] Weiner SJ, Kollman PA, Case DA, et al. (1984) A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins. J Am Chem Soc 106: 765–784. doi: 10.1021/ja00315a051
    [125] Paul W, Yoon DY, Smith GD, et al. (1995) An Optimized United Atom Model for Simulations of Polymethylene Melts. J Chem Phys 103: 1702–1709. doi: 10.1063/1.469740
    [126] Siu SWI, Vácha R, Jungwirth P, et al. (2008) Biomolecular simulations of membranes: physical properties from different force fields. J Phys Chem 128: 125103. doi: 10.1063/1.2897760
    [127] Drouffe JM, Maggs AC, Leibler S, et al. (1991) Computer simulations of self-assembled membranes. Science 254: 1353–1356. doi: 10.1126/science.1962193
    [128] Goetz R, Lipowsky R (1998) Computer simulations of bilayer membranes: Self-assembly and interfacial tension. J Chem Phys 108: 7397–7409. doi: 10.1063/1.476160
    [129] Noguchi H, Takasu M (2001) Self-assembly of amphiphiles into vesicles: A Brownian dynamics simulation. Phys Rev E 64: 041913. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.041913
    [130] Bourov GK, Bhattacharya A (2005) Brownian dynamics simulation study of self-assembly of amphiphiles with large hydrophilic heads. J Chem Phys 122: 44702. doi: 10.1063/1.1834495
    [131] Steinhauser MO, Grass K, Thoma K, et al. (2006) Impact dynamics and failure of brittle solid states by means of nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulations. EPL 73: 62–68. doi: 10.1209/epl/i2005-10353-2
    [132] Yang S, Qu J (2014) Coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations of the tensile behavior of a thermosetting polymer. Phys Rev E 90: 012601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.90.012601
    [133] Eslami H, Müller-Plathe F (2013) How thick is the interphase in an ultrathin polymer film? Coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations of polyamide-6,6 on graphene. J Phys Chem 117: 5249–5257.
    [134] Ganzenm¨uller GC, Hiermaier S, Steinhauser MO (2011) Shock-wave induced damage in lipid bilayers: a dissipative particle dynamics simulation study. Soft Matter 7: 4307–4317. doi: 10.1039/c0sm01296c
    [135] Huang WX, Chang CB, Sung HJ (2012) Three-dimensional simulation of elastic capsules in shear flow by the penalty immersed boundary method. J Comput Phys 231: 3340–3364. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2012.01.006
    [136] Pazzona FG, Demontis P (2012) A grand-canonical Monte Carlo study of the adsorption properties of argon confined in ZIF-8: local thermodynamic modeling. J Phys Chem 117: 349–357.
    [137] Pogodin S, Baulin VA (2010) Coarse-grained models of phospholipid membranes within the single chain mean field theory. Soft Matter 6: 2216–2226. doi: 10.1039/b927437e
    [138] Wang Y, Sigurdsson JK, Brandt E, et al. (2013) Dynamic implicit-solvent coarse-grained models of lipid bilayer membranes: fluctuating hydrodynamics thermostat. Phys Rev E 88: 023301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.88.023301
    [139] Koshiyama K, Kodama T, Yano T, et al. (2006) Structural Change in Lipid Bilayers and Water Penetration Induced by Shock Waves: Molecular Dynamics Simulations. Biophys J 91: 2198–2205. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.105.077677
    [140] Koshiyama K, Kodama T, Yano T, et al. (2008) Molecular dynamics simulation of structural changes of lipid bilayers induced by shock waves: Effects of incident angles. BBA-Biomembranes 1778: 1423–1428. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2008.03.010
    [141] Lechuga J, Drikakis D, Pal S (2008) Molecular dynamics study of the interaction of a shock wave with a biological membrane. Int J Numer Mech Fluids 57: 677–692. doi: 10.1002/fld.1588
    [142] Kodama T, Kodama T, Hamblin MR, et al. (2000) Cytoplasmic molecular delivery with shock waves: importance of impulse. Biophys J 79: 1821–1832. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76432-0
    [143] Doukas AG, McAuliffe DJ, Lee S, et al. (1995) Physical factors involved in stress-wave-induced cell injury: The effect of stress gradient. Ultrasound Med Biol 21: 961–967. doi: 10.1016/0301-5629(95)00027-O
    [144] Doukas AG, Flotte TJ (1996) Physical characteristics and biological effects of laser-induced stress waves. Ultrasound Med Biol 22: 151–164. doi: 10.1016/0301-5629(95)02026-8
    [145] Lee S, Doukas AG (1999) Laser-generated stress waves and their effects on the cell membrane. IEEE J Sel Top Quant 5: 997–1003. doi: 10.1109/2944.796322
    [146] Español P (1997) Dissipative Particle Dynamics with energy conservation. EPL 40: 631–636. doi: 10.1209/epl/i1997-00515-8
    [147] Steinhauser MO, Schindler T (2017) Particle-based simulations of bilayer membranes: selfassembly, structural analysis, and shock-wave damage. Comp Part Mech 4: 69–86. doi: 10.1007/s40571-016-0126-3
    [148] Hansen JP, McDonald IR (2005) Theory of Simple Liquids, Academic Press.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Mustafa Özgür, Sait Engindeniz, Görkem Öztürk, Sera Sebze Üreticilerinin Topraksız Teknikleri Kullanma Eğilimini Etkileyen Faktörlerin Analizi: İzmir’in Menderes İlçesi Örneği, 2024, 1300-0225, 10.18615/anadolu.1514390
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2017 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7783) PDF downloads(1086) Cited by(3)

Figures and Tables

Figures(22)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog