Next Article in Journal
Optimization of Stope Structural Parameters for Steeply Dipping Thick Ore Bodies: Based on the Simulated Annealing Algorithm
Previous Article in Journal
Delayed-Expansion Capsule Sealing Material for Coal Mine Overburden Isolated Grouting
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/app142411596
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Imaging and Optical Emission Spectroscopy of Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge (SDBD) Plasma Generated Using Reactors with Planar and Cylindrical Electrodes

by
Mateusz Tański
1,*,
Janusz Podliński
1,
Artur Berendt
1 and
Jerzy Mizeraczyk
2
1
Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery, Polish Academy of Sciences, Fiszera 14, 80-231 Gdansk, Poland
2
Department of Marine Electronics, Gdynia Maritime University, Morska 83, 81-225 Gdynia, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(24), 11596; https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411596
Submission received: 15 November 2024 / Revised: 8 December 2024 / Accepted: 10 December 2024 / Published: 12 December 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Featured Application

The SDBD plasma reactors has recently found many practical applications, including aviation, ozone production and environmental protection.

Abstract

We characterized non-thermal plasma generated in two types of Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge (SDBD) reactors, one with a planar and the other with a cylindrical electrode. Plasma was examined using the time-resolved imaging and Optical Emission Spectroscopy (OES) methods. We observed that the cylindrical electrode suppresses plasma formation during both discharge modes: positive streamers and pseudo-Trichel microdischarges. The propagation velocity of the plasma front was estimated to be in the range 12–15 m/s, regardless of the discharge mode and electrode type. Spectral analysis showed that the plasma emission spectrum consisted mainly of the first and second positive nitrogen bands. Using Specair software, we calculated the plasma thermodynamic parameters and found that, despite morphological differences, the plasma generated in both reactors had similar thermodynamic properties. Finally, we discussed the temporal evolution of the discharge and attributed the plasma suppression caused by the cylindrical electrode to the characteristic uniformity of the electric field around and along this electrode.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Since its introduction by Siemens in 1857 [1], Dielectric Barrier Discharge (DBD) continues to attract extensive research [2]. In recent years, this research has focused on Surface DBD (SDBD), a form of discharge that is generated only within a thin layer on the surface of the dielectric insulator separating the electrodes. In contrast, traditional DBD, sometimes referred to as Volumetric DBD (VDBD), fills the entire volume of the air gap between the electrodes.
Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) SDBD plasma actuators can be used to improve the performance of aerodynamic elements such as aircraft wings and turbine blades [3,4,5]. By modifying the airflow around these elements, SDBD actuators can influence flow separation, laminar-turbulent transition, lift, or drag [6,7,8]. In addition, SDBD plasma reactors have proven useful in other applications, including ozone production [9,10,11,12,13], fluid pumping [14], surface modification [15,16,17], air and water treatment, and others [18,19,20]. However, despite its many practical applications, a consistent theory describing the nature of SDBD has not yet been developed, largely due to the complexity and highly dynamic nature of the involved processes, which limits its practical use.
Planar high-voltage electrode reactors are the most common type of SDBD reactors in practical applications and are widely reported in the literature. However, as originally proposed by Debien et al. [21,22], the morphology and parameters of the SDBD plasma can vary significantly depending on the shape of the discharge electrode. This concept was later extended by other researchers. Moreau et al. [23] compared the electrical, mechanical, and optical characteristics of the SDBD actuators with different electrode shapes and found that the actuator with a wire-shaped electrode produced a streamer-free discharge and a more homogeneous EHD flow compared to planar and saw-like electrode configurations. Similar results were later reported by Nakano et al. [24], who also investigated different electrode geometries for high-performance SDBD actuators. Kaneko et al. [25] compared the thermal and flow characteristics of SDBD actuators with various electrode shapes and found differences in the EHD flow profiles and temperature distributions. Li et al. [26] investigated the charge distribution in a wire-shaped SDBD actuator, observing that the number of positive charges accumulating near the high-voltage electrode increases as the wire diameter decreases. Recently, Zhang et al. [27] examined the thermal characteristics of different types of SDBD actuators and concluded that the planar electrode reactors are characterized by a slightly higher temperature of the dielectric material compared to the wire electrode for the same discharge power.
The properties of the SDBD plasma have also been studied by various research groups in the past. Enloe et al. [28] was among the first to study the morphology of the plasma generated in a typical SDBD reactor using a photomultiplier tube. He identified two characteristic discharge modes, which were later confirmed by other research [29,30,31]. Tirumala et al. [32] used a fast-gated and infrared camera simultaneously to study the plasma morphology and correlated the plasma onset points at the electrode edge with temperature hotspots. Bayoda et al. [33] focused on the extension of streamers in SDBD actuators and reported that in a standard electrode configuration, streamers can easily extend up to 40 mm from the electrode. Zhang et al. [34] studied the SDBD plasma morphology generated from the rod-shaped electrode and observed that increasing the applied voltage enhanced streamer filamentation. Recently, Shcherbanev et al. [35] used a fast-gated imaging technique to study streamer filamentation in the nanosecond SDBD. He found that the velocity of a single streamer front varies with the applied voltage. On the other hand, DBD plasma has been mainly studied spectroscopically in its traditional volumetric form; however, some reports have also addressed SDBD. Yun et al. [36] analyzed SDBD plasma by observing the intensity of selected emission lines in the nitrogen second positive system. Nupangtha et al. [37] used a spectroscopic methods to study SDBD plasma for cancer treatment. Similar techniques were later used by Jangra et al. [38] to investigate VOC degradation in the discharge, while Burhenn et al. [39] recently studied the co-planar SDBD reactor with OES for its potential use in trace element detection.
In this paper, we further extend the concept proposed by Debien et al. by studying the SDBD reactors with both planar and cylindrical electrodes using time-resolved imaging and OES techniques [40]. We compare the morphology of the discharge plasma at different stages of its evolution for both reactor types, identify the lines and bands in the plasma emission spectra, and determine the plasma thermodynamic parameters using spectroscopic methods. Finally, we discuss the stages of SDBD evolution, providing a simplified yet intuitive interpretation of the processes involved in plasma evolution and the effect of electrode geometry on the discharge plasma.
Our research aims to expand knowledge of SDBD reactors, with a particular focus on the effect of electrode shape on the morphological and spectroscopic properties of the SDBD plasma. We hope that our studies will further the development of practical applications for SDBD reactors.

2. Experimental Setup and Methods

The time-resolved imaging and OES experiments were carried out using two types of SDBD reactors. The first reactor had a planar high voltage electrode cut into a rectangular shape and made of 20 µm thick copper foil, while the other reactor had a cylindrical electrode made of a thin tungsten wire with a diameter of 10 µm. In both cases, the electrode was placed on a dielectric barrier made of a 1 mm thick ceramic plate (100 mm × 100 mm). The grounded electrode was placed on the opposite side of the dielectric. The relative positioning of the electrodes on each side of the dielectric is shown in Figure 1. In the planar electrode configuration, the high-voltage electrode was aligned edge-to-edge with the grounded electrode (Figure 1A), while the wire electrode was positioned to extend halfway across the grounded electrode (Figure 1B). The grounded electrode was electrically insulated with resin. The experiment was conducted in ambient air.
Both reactors were supplied with an AC sinusoidal high voltage with a frequency of 1 kHz and peak-to-peak voltage of 28 kV generated using the Tektronix AFG3101 (Tektronix, Beaverton, OR, USA) coupled with a Trek40/15 high-voltage amplifier (Advanced Energy, Denver, CO, USA) (Figure 1C). The voltage waveform supplied to the reactor was measured using a Tektronix DPO 4104 oscilloscope equipped with a Tektronix P6015A high-voltage probe. Due to amplifier limitations, higher frequencies and voltages were unavailable, as they would introduce distortions to the voltage waveform. When the high voltage was applied to the reactors, the SDBD was generated and a non-thermal plasma developed from the electrodes.
The morphology of the discharged plasma was studied using an intensified CCD (ICCD) camera, which allowed for a series of plasma images to be taken with very short exposure times (down to 1 ns) over various time delays with respect to the voltage waveform. It should be noted that this imaging technique generates a set of images representing different discharges, rather than tracking a single plasma discharge over time. In the preliminary studies, we confirmed that the plasma structures were repeatable between periods of the voltage waveform. The plasma images were recorded using an Andor iStar DH734 ICCD, synchronized with the function generator and equipped with a UV lens positioned perpendicularly above the reactor at a distance of approximately 50 mm (no additional optical filters were used in the experimental setup). The plasma emission spectra were recorded with two types of fiber-coupled spectrometers: (i) an OceanOptics Maya 2000 (Ocean Optics, Inc., Orlando, FL, USA), which offers a relatively wide spectral range of 200 nm–1100 nm, and (ii) an Andor Mechelle ME5000 (Oxford Instruments, Abingdon, UK), which was selected for high-resolution spectral analysis. Prior to measurements with the Mechelle spectrometer, its calibration curve was determined using a white light source. The optical fiber input for both spectrometers was positioned 10 mm above the reactors 1 mm from the edge of the high-voltage electrode and was used interchangeably with the ICCD camera.

3. Results

As previously reported elsewhere [29,41,42,43,44], the current waveform of the SDBD consists of two characteristic sets of spikes separated by periods of no discharge current. One set of positive spikes occurs during the rising voltage slope, while the other set of negative spikes occurs during the falling slope. Each set corresponds to a different discharge mode. Therefore, instead of presenting the well-studied voltage and current waveforms, we focus here on the imaging and OES results.

3.1. Plasma Imaging

Typical sets of time-resolved images illustrating the evolution of the discharge plasma during a single duty cycle generated using the planar and cylindrical electrode reactors are shown in Figure 2. Each image in the set was captured at a progressively increasing time delay relative to the maximum of the voltage waveform. The specific time delay and corresponding voltage are given in each image.
The evolution of the plasma morphology in both reactors follows a similar pattern, which can be divided into four characteristic phases. In the case of the planar electrode reactor (Figure 2A), the first phase (time delay 0 μs) begins as the applied voltage approaches its maximum value, during which no discharge plasma is observed. This is followed by a second phase (time delay from 160 μs to 340 μs) in which a decrease in voltage initiates the formation of wide plasma plumes that appear at random locations at the edge of the electrode. This discharge mode, sometimes referred to as a pseudo-Trichel discharge (also known as a diffuse or glow microdischarge), corresponds to a series of negative current pulses, and its morphology is similar to that of a negative DC corona discharge [45]. In the third phase (time delay 500 μs), as the applied voltage approaches its minimum, the plasma decays. The final phase (time delay from 660 μs to 850 μs) of plasma evolution begins as the voltage increases again, resulting in the formation of the positive streamer discharge, which has the shape of long plasma filaments.
In the cylindrical electrode configuration (Figure 2B), the plasma evolves similarly, with some notable differences. One of them is visible in the second phase (time delay from 170 μs to 340 μs) of the pseudo-Trichel discharge, where the plasma plumes are significantly smaller and more sparsely distributed along the electrode compared to the planar electrode. As the cylindrical electrode is positioned centrally with respect to the grounded electrode, plasma plumes are generated on both sides of the wire. The third phase (time delay 500 μs) is characterized by plasma decay, followed by the fourth phase (time delay from 630 μs to 850 μs) of positive streamer formation. These streamers are shorter, thicker, and more branched than those produced by the planar electrode. They are also generated for a shorter duration than those in the planar electrode configuration. In the latter part of this phase, the streamer discharge transitions to a uniform glow from the wire electrode.
The recorded images allowed us to characterize the propagation of the plasma front in both discharge modes (Figure 3). The pseudo-Trichel discharge lasted approximately 250 µs for both electrode configurations, during which the plasma front advanced up to about 3.3 mm from the electrode. In contrast, the duration of the streamer phase varied: it lasted 350 µs for the planar electrode reactor, allowing the plasma to travel about 4 mm in this time, while for the cylindrical electrode reactor, this phase lasted only 160 µs, with the plasma front traveling only about 2 mm. Thus, while the cylindrical electrode partially suppresses positive streamer formation, it does not completely eliminate it. We found it interesting that the average plasma front velocity was approximately the same for both discharge modes and both reactor types, ranging from 12 to 15 m/s. This plasma front velocity differs from the results previously obtained by Enloe et al. [28], who reported approximately 85 m/s. These differences may be due to the higher frequency of the voltage waveform in their experiment, which resulted in a more rapid increase in the voltage applied to the electrode.

3.2. Plasma Optical Emission Spectroscopy

The emission spectra of excited atoms and molecules in the SDBD plasma were first measured using the OceanOptics Maya 2000 spectrometer, which covers a broad spectral range from 200 nm to 1100 nm. Figure 4A,B shows typical emission spectra (averaged over 60 s) recorded for reactors with planar and cylindrical electrodes, respectively. Emission peaks and bands were identified and are summarized in Table 1.
Both spectra look similar; however, the emission intensity of the plasma generated using the planar electrode is approximately twice that of the cylindrical electrode. This difference was expected, since the wire electrode suppresses the formation of streamers, as shown in Section 3.1. Both spectra are dominated by the characteristic optical bands of the N2 molecules. We identified the N2 s positive band (C3Π → B3Π) in the 300 nm–500 nm range and the N2 first positive band (B3Π → A3Σ) in the 630 nm–900 nm range, along with the N2+ first negative band (B3Σ → X2Σ) at 393.1 nm. The emission spectra also contain atomic nitrogen and oxygen lines at 818.6 nm and 844.8 nm, respectively. However, for the reactor with the planar electrode, we observed a significant reduction in the intensity of the atomic nitrogen line. In particular, the expected OH bands around 308 nm were not detected [46,47,48]. This is probably due to overlap with much stronger N2 bands, making it difficult to clearly resolve these lines. The presence of NO bands in the 200–300 nm spectral range was also expected [49]. However, the low peak intensities observed in this range prevented clear identification of these bands.
As shown elsewhere [50,51], the DBD plasma does not reach local thermodynamic equilibrium, so a simple Boltzmann plot method [52,53] cannot be directly applied to determine its thermodynamic parameters. Instead, we used the Specair software (version 3.0.2.0) to simulate the N2 emission spectrum at given rotational (Trot), translational (TTrans), vibrational (Tvib), and electron (Te) temperatures, and fit the simulated spectrum to the measured one. However, we found that the spectral resolution of the Maya 2000 spectrograms was too low for reliable spectral fitting, so we re-measured the plasma emission spectrum using an Andor Mechelle 500 high-resolution spectrometer. Because of its relatively low sensitivity and nonlinear response over a wide spectral range, we limited its spectral range to approximately 365–384 nm, where only strong N2 bands are present. This limited range also minimized simulation errors due to software limitations, such as the lack of consideration of plasma optical thickness and air absorption. In the simulations, we assumed that the plasma contained only nitrogen and that only the second positive nitrogen transitions occurred in the plasma.
Figure 5 shows the measured emission spectrum for the planar electrode reactor and the fitted simulated spectrum. The multivariable iterative fitting method was used with the plasma temperatures (TRot, TTrans, TVibr, Te) as the fitting parameters. The parameters that gave the best fit represent the determined values of the plasma temperatures. We obtained the best fitting with the measured spectrum for the following thermodynamic parameters: Te = 6270 K, TRot = 400 K, TTrans = 400 K, TVibr = 3100 K. Very similar thermodynamic parameters were obtained for the plasma generated using the cylindrical electrode reactor and are therefore not presented separately. The plasma parameters determined are generally in agreement with the literature. Biganzoli et al. [54] estimated parameters of the typical VDBD plasma as Trot = 499 K, Tvib = 2550 K. Similarly; Gulec et al. [55] reported a plasma electron temperature of approximately Te = 5850 K.

4. Discussion

In this section, we use a simplified analytical model to discuss the characteristic phases of SDBD evolution over a single voltage cycle. We also investigate the influence of the electrode geometry on the plasma formation process. We assume that the SDBD is generated using a typical reactor, similar to the one used in our experiment, operating in stationary air at atmospheric pressure. For clarity, only the reactor with a planar electrode configuration is shown in the diagram in Figure 6. The SDBD plasma reactor is powered by a sinusoidal high voltage waveform applied to the discharge electrode, and the progression of voltage phase stages is indicated by arrows in the diagram. It is further assumed that a steady-state SDBD has already been established and that the spatial distribution of the bound charge in the volume of the dielectric is constant.
We begin the analysis at the positive voltage half-cycle, when the voltage applied to the discharge electrode is at its maximum (Figure 6A). At this phase, the material of the dielectric barrier is already electrically polarized so that the negative-bound charge accumulates near its upper surface. This negative-bound charge electrostatically attracts positive charges from the surrounding air, forming a thin layer of positive charges on the dielectric surface. Although the attraction of these positive charges has been reported in other studies [56,57,58], the mechanism behind their generation remains partially unexplained. It is likely that these charges consist of positive gas ions produced in the discharge during the previous voltage cycles. In Section 3.2, we confirmed the presence of N2+ ions in the SDBD plasma (using the OES method), which are produced in the discharge by collisions with energetic free electrons, as described with Reaction (1).
e + N 2 X 1 Σ + → N 2 + A 3 Σ + e .
The second phase (Figure 6B) begins as the applied voltage begins to decrease. Despite the decreasing potential of the discharge electrode, the polarization of the dielectric barrier does not dissipate immediately; rather, it is sustained during the dielectric relaxation time and maintains the layer of positive particles. As the applied voltage continues to decrease, the electric potential of the discharge electrodes becomes lower than that of the dielectric barrier surface, creating a strong electric field between the electrode and the dielectric. This field initiates electron emission from the electrode edge. The emitted electrons, along with free electrons in the air, are accelerated along the dielectric surface in the electric field. When the energy of these electrons exceeds the ionization threshold of the air molecules, electron avalanches occur, similar to the negative DC corona discharge that we observed in the form of plasma plumes (shown in Figure 2). These plasma plumes are longer and more randomly distributed when emitted from the planar electrode, probably due to its sharp edges, which are the source of spots of higher electric field intensity. In contrast, the cylindrical electrode produces a more uniform electric field with no points of higher field intensity, so the plasma plumes are shorter and more evenly distributed along the electrode length. Meanwhile, the polarization of the dielectric barrier shifts, and its upper boundary becomes positively polarized. This leads to the accumulation of electrons and negative ions generated in this pseudo-Trichel discharge on the dielectric surface. As the negative charge accumulates, it gradually neutralizes the electric field until the accelerated electrons no longer have sufficient energy to ionize air molecules, at which point this diffuse discharge ceases. This marks the third phase (Figure 6C), where the applied voltage reaches its minimum value and a substantial number of electrons and negative ions are deposited on the dielectric surface, electrostatically held by the positive bound charge in the dielectric. As the voltage begins to increase, the potential of the discharge electrode becomes positive with respect to this surface charge. When the difference between these potentials reaches a critical level, the fourth phase of positive streamer formation begins (Figure 6D). The positive streamer is a thin channel of conducting plasma. It consists of a positively charged front and a highly ionized but electrically neutral channel. The positive streamers develop in the opposite direction to the electron drift, consuming the free electrons along the way as they enter the streamer channel and move toward the discharge electrode. Typically, free electrons at the streamer head are generated by ionizing radiation. However, in the SDBD, a pre-existing population of electrons on the dielectric surface supports streamer development. As these streamers grow and extend away from the discharge electrode, the electric field at their heads weakens, and when it becomes too weak to support gas ionization, the streamers extinguish. As before, the irregularities along the edge of a planar electrode create points of high electric field that are the onsets of the streamer channels and promote their formation. On the other hand, the uniform electric field generated around the cylindrical electrode suppresses their formation. Instead, the electrons are attracted more evenly by the electrode, producing a characteristic glow along its entire length, which is visible in the final stage of this phase (Figure 2B). Meanwhile, the polarization of the dielectric barrier shifts, and its upper barrier layer becomes negatively polarized, completing the cycle.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we investigated SDBD using time-resolved imaging and optical emission spectroscopy. We characterized the SDBD plasma generated using two types of reactors, one with a planar electrode and the other with a cylindrical electrode, both powered by sinusoidal AC voltage under identical parameters. Our main findings are as follows:
  • There are differences in plasma morphology, particularly in the evolution of pseudo-Trichel plumes during the falling half-cycle of the voltage waveform and formation of positive streamers during the rising half-cycle;
  • Both positive streamers and plasma plumes are more intense in the planar electrode configuration, while the cylindrical electrode significantly suppresses streamer formation;
  • The plasma front velocity remains approximately constant for both reactor types and discharge modes;
  • The emission spectrum of the SDBD plasma is dominated by the first and second positive nitrogen bands;
  • Despite morphological differences, the plasma thermodynamic properties (rotation, translation, vibration, and electron temperatures) are similar for both reactor types;
  • The non-uniform electric field distribution around the planar electrode favors the formation of the plasma onset spots with higher electric field intensity, while the field distribution around the cylindrical electrode lacks such regions, which affects the plasma formation process.
We believe that our research contributes to filling the gap in understanding SDBD. The results presented in this paper may be useful for studying the role of electrode configuration in the SDBD plasma devices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T., A.B. and J.P.; methodology, M.T. and A.B.; validation, M.T., J.P. and J.M.; formal analysis, M.T., J.P. and A.B.; investigation, M.T. and A.B.; resources, J.M.; data curation, M.T. and J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.; writing—review and editing, J.P.; visualization, M.T. and J.P.; supervision, M.T.; project administration, J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Siemens, W. Ueber Die Elektrostatische Induction Und Die Verzögerung Des Stroms in Flaschendrähten. Ann. Phys. 1857, 178, 66–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Brandenburg, R.; Becker, K.H.; Weltmann, K.-D. Barrier Discharges in Science and Technology Since 2003: A Tribute and Update. Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 2023, 43, 1303–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kotsonis, M. Diagnostics for Characterisation of Plasma Actuators. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2015, 26, 092001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sidorenko, A.A.; Budovskiy, A.D.; Maslov, A.A.; Postnikov, B.V.; Zanin, B.Y.; Zverkov, I.D.; Kozlov, V.V. Plasma Control of Vortex Flow on a Delta Wing at High Angles of Attack. Exp. Fluids 2013, 54, 1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pescini, E.; De Giorgi, M.G.; Suma, A.; Francioso, L.; Ficarella, A. Separation Control by a Microfabricated SDBD Plasma Actuator for Small Engine Turbine Applications: Influence of the Excitation Waveform. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2018, 76, 442–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Starikovskiy, A.; Meehan, K.; Persikov, N.; Miles, R. Static and Dynamic Stall Control by NS SDBD Actuators. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2019, 28, 054001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Joussot, R.; Hong, D.; Weber-Rozenbaum, R.; Leroy-Chesneau, A. Modification of the Laminar-to-Turbulent Transition on a Flat Plate Using DBD Plasma Actuator. In Proceedings of the 5th Flow Control Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 28 June–1 July 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Corke, T.C.; Post, M.L.; Orlov, D.M. SDBD Plasma Enhanced Aerodynamics: Concepts, Optimization and Applications. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2007, 43, 193–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Korzec, D.; Freund, F.; Bäuml, C.; Penzkofer, P.; Nettesheim, S. Hybrid Dielectric Barrier Discharge Reactor: Characterization for Ozone Production. Plasma 2024, 7, 585–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nassour, K.; Brahami, M.; Nemmich, S.; Hammadi, N.; Zouzou, N.; Tilmatine, A. Comparative Experimental Study between Surface and Volume DBD Ozone Generator. Ozone Sci. Eng. 2015, 38, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zylka, P. Evaluation of Ozone Generation in Volume Spiral-Tubular Dielectric Barrier Discharge Source. Energies 2020, 13, 1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yuan, D.; Zhang, G.; Ling, Z.; Wu, A.; He, Y.; Wang, Z. Characteristics of Temperature Distribution in Atmospheric Pulsed Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge for Ozone Production. Vacuum 2020, 176, 109351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Xie, L.; Yuan, D.; Jin, C.; Xu, H.; Li, Y.; Wei, L.; Wu, W.; Ling, Z. Characteristics of Dielectric Barrier Discharge and Ozone Production in Synthetic Air. Vacuum 2024, 226, 113359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Adamiak, K. Two-Species Modeling of Electrohydrodynamic Pump Based on Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge. J. Electrost. 2020, 106, 103470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, Z.; Deng, S.; Chen, J. Surface Modification via Dielectric Barrier Discharge Atmospheric Cold Plasma (DBD–ACP): Improved Functional Properties of Soy Protein Film. Foods 2022, 11, 1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ibrahim, J.; Al-Babtaineh, S.A.; Cousens, S.; Michelmore, A.; Corr, C.; Whittle, J. A Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge for Deposition of Allylamine Polymer Costings. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2021, 544, 148826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Udachin, V.; Wegewitz, L.; Dahle, S.; Maus-Friedrichs, W. Reduction of Copper Surface Oxide Using a Sub-Atmospheric Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2022, 573, 151568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kang, M.S.; Yu, G.; Shin, J.; Hwang, J. Collection and Decomposition of Oil Mist via Corona Discharge and Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 411, 125038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tański, M.; Reza, A.; Przytuła, D.; Garasz, K.; Tomaszewski, A. Electrostatic Precipitator with Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge Ionizer. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 404, 136990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Veerana, M.; Mumtaz, S.; Rana, J.N.; Javed, R.; Panngom, K.; Ahmed, B.; Akter, K.; Choi, E.H. Recent Advances in Non-Thermal Plasma for Seed Germination, Plant Growth, and Secondary Metabolite Synthesis: A Promising Frontier for Sustainable Agriculture. Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 2024, 44, 2263–2302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Debien, A.; Benard, N.; Moreau, E. Streamer Inhibition for Improving Force and Electric Wind Produced by DBD Actuators. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2012, 45, 215201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Debien, A.; Benard, N.; David, L.; Moreau, E. Unsteady Aspect of the Electrohydrodynamic Force Produced by Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge Actuators. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012, 100, 013901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moreau, E.; Cazour, J.; Benard, N. Influence of the Air-Exposed Active Electrode Shape on the Electrical, Optical and Mechanical Characteristics of a Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Actuator. J. Electrost. 2018, 93, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nakano, A.; Kaneko, Y.; Nishida, H. Investigation on Voltage Waveform Characteristics of Plasma Actuators with Different Electrode Geometry for High Performance. In Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, Orlando, FL, USA, 6–10 January 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kaneko, Y.; Nishida, H.; Tagawa, Y. Visualization of the Electrohydrodynamic and Thermal Effects of AC-DBD Plasma Actuators of Plate- and Wire-Exposed Electrodes. Actuators 2022, 11, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, J.-Q.; Yan, H.-J.; Li, T.; Yu, S.-Q.; Fan, J.-W.; Song, J. Surface Charge Characteristics in Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge Actuators with Thin Cylindrical Exposed Electrode. J. Appl. Phys. 2023, 133, 063301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, C. Recent Developments in Thermal Characteristics of Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Actuators Driven by Sinusoidal High-Voltage Power. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2023, 36, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Enloe, C.L.; McLaughlin, T.E.; VanDyken, R.D.; Kachner, K.D.; Jumper, E.J.; Corke, T.C. Mechanisms and Responses of a Single Dielectric Barrier Plasma Actuator: Plasma Morphology. AIAA J. 2004, 42, 589–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Benard, N.; Moreau, E. Electrical and Mechanical Characteristics of Surface AC Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Actuators Applied to Airflow Control. Exp. Fluids 2014, 55, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Selivonin, I.; Moralev, I. Microdischarges Properties in sDBD: The Role of the Exposed Electrode Oxidation. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2020, 30, 035005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Benard, N.; Moreau, E. Role of the Electric Waveform Supplying a Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Actuator. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012, 100, 193503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tirumala, R.; Benard, N.; Moreau, E.; Fenot, M.; Lalizel, G.; Dorignac, E. Temperature Characterization of Dielectric Barrier Discharge Actuators: Influence of Electrical and Geometric Parameters. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2014, 47, 255203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bayoda, K.D.; Benard, N.; Moreau, E. Elongating the Area of Plasma/Fluid Interaction of Surface Nanosecond Pulsed Discharges. J. Electrost. 2015, 74, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Jiang, N.; Shang, K.-F.; Lu, N.; Wu, Y. Optical Characteristics of the Filamentary and Diffuse Modes in Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2016, 168, 230–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Shcherbanev, S.A.; Ding, C.; Starikovskaia, S.M.; Popov, N.A. Filamentary Nanosecond Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge. Plasma Properties in the Filaments. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2019, 28, 065013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; Jia, M.; Song, H.; Su, C.; Pu, Y. Experimental Investigation into Characteristics of Plasma Aerodynamic Actuation Generated by Dielectric Barrier Discharge. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2010, 23, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nupangtha, W.; Kuensaen, C.; Ngamjarurojana, A.; Chomdej, S.; Boonyawan, D. A Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge Non-Thermal Plasma to Induce Cell Death in Colorectal Cancer Cells. AIP Adv. 2021, 11, 075222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jangra, R.; Ahlawat, K.; Prakash, R. An SDBD Plasma-Based Source for Efficient Degradation of VOCs in an Enclosed Environment. Phys. Lett. A 2023, 490, 129184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Burhenn, S.; Golda, J.; Kratzer, J.; Brandt, S.; Held, J. Characterization of a Co-Planar Dielectric Barrier Discharge Design as a Plasma Source for Trace Element Detection by Atomic Spectrometry. Spectrochim. Acta Part B At. Spectrosc. 2024, 213, 106884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kunze, H.J. Introduction to Plasma Spectroscopy, 1st ed.; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 1–203. [Google Scholar]
  41. Moreau, E.; Benard, N. Ionic Wind Produced by Volume Corona Discharges and Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharges: What Role Do Streamers Play? J. Electrost. 2024, 132, 103988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Guo, T.; Du, X.; Peng, Z.; Xu, L.; Dong, J.; Li, J.; Cheng, P.; Zhou, Z. Quantification and Risk Assessment of Organic Products Resulting from Non-thermal Plasma Removal of Toluene in Nitrogen. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2017, 31, 1424–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhou, L.; Wei, L.; Yang, Z.; Suo, C.; Li, J.; Zhou, D.; Ding, Y.; Li, H.; Tang, J. Time-Domain Signal Analysis of Dielectric Response of Nonlinear SDBD Thruster in near Space. Vacuum 2023, 207, 111666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Galmiz, O.; Pavlinak, D.; Zemanek, M.; Brablec, A.; Cernak, M. Study of Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge Generated Using Liquid Electrodes in Different Gases. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2015, 49, 065201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Moreau, E.; Defoort, E. Effect of the High Voltage Waveform on the Ionic Wind Produced by a Needle-to-Plate Dielectric Barrier Discharge. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 18699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zhang, Y.; Yao, J.; Liu, G.; Yuan, C.; He, X.; Wang, X. Characteristics of OH Production at Atmospheric-Pressure Discharge in He/Ar- Air Dielectric Barrier Discharge. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science (ICOPS), Beijing, China, 16–20 June 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yao, S.; Weng, S.; Tang, Y.; Zhao, C.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Yamamoto, S.; Kodama, S. Characteristics of OH Production by O2/H2O Pulsed Dielectric Barrier Discharge. Vacuum 2016, 126, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hsieh, K.; Burlica, R.; Locke, B.R. Optical Diagnostics of Electrical Discharge Water Spray Reactors for Chemical Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, 9–13 October 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, G.; Jin, W.; Zheng, H. Dynamic Mechanism about the Fluorescence Emission of NO Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 2013, 127, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dimitrakellis, P.; Faubert, F.; Wartel, M.; Gogolides, E.; Pellerin, S. Plasma Surface Modification of Epoxy Polymer in Air DBD and Gliding Arc. Processes 2022, 10, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Roberts, J.R. 3. Glow Discharges and Wall Stabilized Arcs. Exp. Methods Phys. Sci. 1998, 31, 37–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Völker, T.; Gornushkin, I.B. Extension of the Boltzmann Plot Method for Multiplet Emission Lines. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 2023, 310, 108741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bousquet, B.; Gardette, V.; Ros, V.M.; Gaudiuso, R.; Dell’Aglio, M.; De Giacomo, A. Plasma Excitation Temperature Obtained with Boltzmann Plot Method: Significance, Precision, Trueness and Accuracy. Spectrochim. Acta Part B At. Spectrosc. 2023, 204, 106686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Biganzoli, I.; Barni, R.; Riccardi, C.; Gurioli, A.; Pertile, R. Optical and Electrical Characterization of a Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Actuator. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2013, 22, 025009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gulec, A.; Oksuz, L.; Hershkowitz, N. Optical Studies of Dielectric Barrier Plasma Aerodynamic Actuators. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2011, 20, 045019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Enloe, C.; McLaughlin, T.; Font, G.; Baughn, J. Parameterization of Temporal Structure in the Single Dielectric Barrier Aerodynamic Plasma Actuator (Invited). In Proceedings of the 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 10–13 January 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Soloviev, V.R.; Selivonin, I.V.; Moralev, I.A. Breakdown Voltage for Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge Ignition in Atmospheric Air. Phys. Plasmas 2017, 24, 103528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Takeuchi, N.; Hamasaki, T.; Yasuoka, K.; Sakurai, T. Surface Charge Measurement in Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge by Laser Polarimetry. J. Electrost. 2011, 69, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 11596 g001
Figure 1. Geometry of the SDBD reactors with (A) planar electrode, (B) cylindrical electrode. (C) Experimental setup for imaging and OES (for clarity, only a reactor with a planar electrode is shown). The field of view of the ICCD camera is marked with dashed lines.
Figure 1. Geometry of the SDBD reactors with (A) planar electrode, (B) cylindrical electrode. (C) Experimental setup for imaging and OES (for clarity, only a reactor with a planar electrode is shown). The field of view of the ICCD camera is marked with dashed lines.
Applsci 14 11596 g001
Applsci 14 11596 g002
Figure 2. Typical time-resolved images of the SDBD plasma generated using the reactor with (A) planar electrode, (B) cylindrical electrode. The position of the planar electrode is indicated in the images with a dashed rectangle, while the cylindrical electrode is indicated with a dashed line (except for t = 850 μs). The distance traveled by the plasma front is indicated by a vertical bar in the bottom right-hand corner of the images.
Figure 2. Typical time-resolved images of the SDBD plasma generated using the reactor with (A) planar electrode, (B) cylindrical electrode. The position of the planar electrode is indicated in the images with a dashed rectangle, while the cylindrical electrode is indicated with a dashed line (except for t = 850 μs). The distance traveled by the plasma front is indicated by a vertical bar in the bottom right-hand corner of the images.
Applsci 14 11596 g002
Applsci 14 11596 g003
Figure 3. Travel distance of the plasma front during pseudo-Trichel and streamer discharge modes for both types of reactors.
Figure 3. Travel distance of the plasma front during pseudo-Trichel and streamer discharge modes for both types of reactors.
Applsci 14 11596 g003
Applsci 14 11596 g004
Figure 4. Emission spectra of the SDBD plasma reactors with (A) planar electrode, (B) cylindrical electrode.
Figure 4. Emission spectra of the SDBD plasma reactors with (A) planar electrode, (B) cylindrical electrode.
Applsci 14 11596 g004
Applsci 14 11596 g005
Figure 5. Typical emission spectra of the SDBD plasma, measured and simulated.
Figure 5. Typical emission spectra of the SDBD plasma, measured and simulated.
Applsci 14 11596 g005
Applsci 14 11596 g006
Figure 6. The electrical state of the SDBD plasma reactor at different stages of the discharge evolution. (A) Maximum voltage, (B) voltage decreases, (C) minimum voltage, and (D) voltage increases. The arrows show the order of phases.
Figure 6. The electrical state of the SDBD plasma reactor at different stages of the discharge evolution. (A) Maximum voltage, (B) voltage decreases, (C) minimum voltage, and (D) voltage increases. The arrows show the order of phases.
Applsci 14 11596 g006
Table 1. Spectral lines and bands identified in the SDBD plasma.
Table 1. Spectral lines and bands identified in the SDBD plasma.
Band or Line NumberWavelength [nm]Band
1296.2N2 SP
2312.2N2 SP
3314.1N2 SP
4316.9N2 SP
5336.6N2 SP
6352.0N2 SP
7354.8N2 SP
8357.8N2 SP
9373.5N2 SP
10375.4N2 SP
11378.6N2 SP
12381.0N2 SP
13393.1N2+ FN
14399.1N2 SP
15405.6N2 SP
16413.5N2 SP
17419.5N2 SP
18426.4N2 SP
19433.8N2 SP
20441.2N2 SP
21448.3N2 SP
22456.9N2 SP
23465.5N2 SP
24471.1N2 SP
25491.3N2 SP
26637.5N2 FP
27645.1N2 FP
28652.7N2 FP
29660.3N2 FP
30667.5N2 FP
31676.0N2 FP
32684.0N2 FP
33725.5N2 FP
34736.5N2 FP
35747.2N2 FP
36760.4N2 FP
37771.0N2 FP
38818.6N
39844.8O
40868.0N2 FP
41886.7N2 FP
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tański, M.; Podliński, J.; Berendt, A.; Mizeraczyk, J. Imaging and Optical Emission Spectroscopy of Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge (SDBD) Plasma Generated Using Reactors with Planar and Cylindrical Electrodes. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11596. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411596

AMA Style

Tański M, Podliński J, Berendt A, Mizeraczyk J. Imaging and Optical Emission Spectroscopy of Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge (SDBD) Plasma Generated Using Reactors with Planar and Cylindrical Electrodes. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(24):11596. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411596

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tański, Mateusz, Janusz Podliński, Artur Berendt, and Jerzy Mizeraczyk. 2024. "Imaging and Optical Emission Spectroscopy of Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge (SDBD) Plasma Generated Using Reactors with Planar and Cylindrical Electrodes" Applied Sciences 14, no. 24: 11596. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411596

APA Style

Tański, M., Podliński, J., Berendt, A., & Mizeraczyk, J. (2024). Imaging and Optical Emission Spectroscopy of Surface Dielectric Barrier Discharge (SDBD) Plasma Generated Using Reactors with Planar and Cylindrical Electrodes. Applied Sciences, 14(24), 11596. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411596

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop