» Articles » PMID: 33812247

Insight into the Impact of Excluding Mass Transport, Heat Exchange and Chemical Reactions Heat on the Sonochemical Bubble Yield: Bubble Size-dependency

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2021 Apr 3
PMID 33812247
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Numerical simulations have been performed on a range of ambient bubble radii, in order to reveal the effect of mass transport, heat exchange and chemical reactions heat on the chemical bubble yield of single acoustic bubble. The results of each of these energy mechanisms were compared to the normal model in which all these processes (mass transport, thermal conduction, and reactions heat) are taken into account. This theoretical work was carried out for various frequencies (f: 200, 355, 515 and 1000 kHz) and different acoustic amplitudes (P: 1.5, 2 and 3 atm). The effect of thermal conduction was found to be of a great importance within the bubble internal energy balance, where the higher rates of production (for all acoustic amplitudes and wave frequencies) are observed for this model (without heat exchange). Similarly, the ignorance of the chemical reactions heat (model without reactions heat) shows the weight of this process into the bubble internal energy, where the yield of the main species (OH, H, O and H) for this model was accelerated notably compared to the complete model for the acoustic amplitudes greater than 1.5 atm (for f = 500 kHz). However, the lowest production rates were registered for the model without mass transport compared to the normal model, for the acoustic amplitudes greater than 1.5 atm (f = 500 kHz). This is observed even when the temperature inside bubble for this model is greater than those retrieved for the other models. On the other hand, it has been shown that, at the acoustic amplitude of 1.5 atm, the maximal production rates of the main species (OH, H, O and H) for all the adopted models appear at the same optimum ambient-bubble size (R ~ 3, 2.5 and 2 µm for, respectively, 355, 500 and 1000 kHz). For P = 2 and 3 atm (f = 500 kHz), the range of the maximal yield of OH radicals is observed at the range of R where the production of OH, O and H is the lowest, which corresponds to the bubble temperature at around 5500 K. The maximal production rate of H, O and H is shifted toward the range of ambient bubble radii corresponding to the bubble temperatures greater than 5500 K. The ambient bubble radius of the maximal response (maximal production rate) is shifted toward the smaller bubble sizes when the acoustic amplitude (wave frequency is fixed) or the ultrasound frequency (acoustic power is fixed) is increased. In addition, it is observed that the increase of wave frequency or the acoustic amplitude decrease cause the range of active bubbles to be narrowed (scenario observation for the four investigated models).

Citing Articles

Ultrasonic destruction of surfactants.

Merouani S, Dehane A, Hamdaoui O Ultrason Sonochem. 2024; 109:107009.

PMID: 39106667 PMC: 11347850. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2024.107009.


Numerical investigation of acoustic cavitation and viscoelastic tissue deformation.

Park J, Son G Ultrason Sonochem. 2024; 102:106757.

PMID: 38217908 PMC: 10825659. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2024.106757.


Critical Analysis of Hydrogen Production by Aqueous Methanol Sonolysis.

Dehane A, Nemdili L, Merouani S, Ashokkumar M Top Curr Chem (Cham). 2023; 381(2):9.

PMID: 36729180 DOI: 10.1007/s41061-022-00418-1.


Production of O Radicals from Cavitation Bubbles under Ultrasound.

Yasui K Molecules. 2022; 27(15).

PMID: 35897962 PMC: 9369501. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27154788.

References
1.
Qiu P, Park B, Choi J, Thokchom B, Pandit A, Khim J . A review on heterogeneous sonocatalyst for treatment of organic pollutants in aqueous phase based on catalytic mechanism. Ultrason Sonochem. 2018; 45:29-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.03.003. View

2.
Holzfuss J . Unstable diffusion and chemical dissociation of a single sonoluminescing bubble. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2005; 71(2 Pt 2):026304. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.026304. View

3.
Fuster D, Hauke G, Dopazo C . Influence of the accommodation coefficient on nonlinear bubble oscillations. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 128(1):5-10. DOI: 10.1121/1.3436520. View

4.
Merouani S, Hamdaoui O, Rezgui Y, Guemini M . Energy analysis during acoustic bubble oscillations: relationship between bubble energy and sonochemical parameters. Ultrasonics. 2013; 54(1):227-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultras.2013.04.014. View

5.
Ashokkumar M . The characterization of acoustic cavitation bubbles - an overview. Ultrason Sonochem. 2010; 18(4):864-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2010.11.016. View