Numerical Characterization of Acoustic Cavitation Bubbles with Respect to the Bubble Size Distribution at Equilibrium
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Numerical Methods
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Yasui, K. Acoustic Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics; Pollet, B.G., Ashokkumar, M., Eds.; Springer Briefs in Molecular Science: Ultrasound and Sonochemistry: Nagoya, Japan, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kentish, S.; Ashokkumar, M. The Physical and Chemical Effects of Ultrasound. In Ultrasound Technologies for Food and Bioprocessing; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Grieser, F.; Choi, P.-K.; Enomoto, N.; Harada, H.; Okitsu, K.; Yasui, K. Sonochemistry and the Acoustic Bubble; Elsevier: Amesterdam, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, C.; Hart, D.P. Ultrasound induced cavitation and sonochemical yields. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 104, 2675–2682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thompson, L.H.; Doraiswamy, L.K. Sonochemistry: Science and Engineering. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1999, 38, 1215–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, M.; Son, Y.; Khim, J. Frequency effects on the sonochemical degradation of chlorinated compounds. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2011, 18, 460–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merouani, S.; Hamdaoui, O.; Saoudi, F.; Chiha, M.; Pétrier, C. Influence of bicarbonate and carbonate ions on sonochemical degradation of Rhodamine B in aqueous phase. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 175, 593–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Navarro, N.M.; Chave, T.; Pochon, P.; Bisel, I.; Nikitenko, S.I. Effect of Ultrasonic Frequency on the Mechanism of Formic Acid Sonolysis. J. Phys. Chem. B 2011, 115, 2024–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anto, T.; Bauchat, P.; Foucaud, A.; Fujita, M.; Kimura, T.; Sohmiya, H. Sonochemical switching from ionic to radical pathways in the reactions of styrene and trans-β-Methylstyrene with lead tetraacetate. Tetrahedron Lett. 1991, 32, 6379–6382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O.; Islam, M.H.; Alghyamah, A.; Hansen, H.E.; Pollet, B.G. Low carbon ultrasonic production of alternate fuel: Operational and mechanistic concerns of the sonochemical process of hydrogen generation under various scenarios. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 26770–26787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O.; Alghyamah, A. Energy balance of high-energy stable acoustic cavitation within dual-frequency sonochemical reactor. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2021, 73, 105471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merouani, S.; Hamdaoui, O.; Rezgui, Y.; Guemini, M. Computational engineering study of hydrogen production via ultrasonic cavitation in water. Int J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 832–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasui, K. Alternative model of single-bubble sonoluminescence. Phys. Rev. E 1997, 56, 6750–6760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sivasankar, T.; Moholkar, V.S. Physical insights into the sonochemical degradation of recalcitrant organic pollutants with cavitation bubble dynamics. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2009, 16, 769–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merouani, S.; Ferkous, H.; Hamdaoui, O.; Rezgui, Y.; Guemini, M. A method for predicting the number of active bubbles in sonochemical reactors. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2015, 22, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O. Void fraction, number density of acoustic cavitation bubbles, and acoustic frequency: A numerical investigation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2019, 146, 2240–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O.; Alghyamah, A. Predicting the Sonochemical Efficiency for Water Decontamination: An Upscaled Numerical Approach. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 44, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, Y.; Oguz, H.N.; Prosperetti, A. The action of pressure-radiation forces on pulsating vapor bubbles. Phys. Fluids 2001, 13, 1167–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mettin, R.; Akhatov, I.; Parlitz, U.; Ohl, C.D.; Lauterborn, W. Bjerknes forces between small cavitation bubbles in a strong acoustic field. Phys. Rev. E 1997, 56, 2924–2931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Y.; Li, S. The secondary Bjerknes force between two gas bubbles under dual-frequency acoustic excitation. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2016, 29, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iida, Y.; Ashokkumar, M.; Tuziuti, T.; Kozuka, T.; Yasui, K.; Towata, A.; Lee, J. Bubble population phenomena in sonochemical reactor: II. Estimation of bubble size distribution and its number density by simple coalescence model calculation. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2010, 17, 480–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yasui, K. Influence of ultrasonic frequency on multibubble sonoluminescence. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002, 112, 1405–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Colonius, T.; Hagmeijer, R.; Ando, K.; Brennen, C.E. Statistical equilibrium of bubble oscillations in dilute bubbly flows. Phys. Fluids 2008, 20, 040902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ida, M. Multibubble cavitation inception. Phys. Fluids 2009, 21, 113302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yasui, K.; Iida, Y.; Tuziuti, T.; Kozuka, T.; Towata, A. Strongly interacting bubbles under an ultrasonic horn. Phys. Rev. E 2008, 77, 016609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Wu, Y.; Chen, W. The role of the bubble–bubble interaction on radial pulsations of bubbles. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2021, 73, 105535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Hondt, L.; Cavaro, M.; Payan, C.; Mensah, S. Acoustical characterisation and monitoring of microbubble clouds. Ultrasonics 2019, 96, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Desai, P.D.; Ng, W.C.; Hines, M.J.; Riaz, Y.; Tesar, V.; Zimmerman, W.B. Comparison of Bubble Size Distributions Inferred from Acoustic, Optical Visualisation, and Laser Diffraction. Colloids Interfaces 2019, 3, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brotchie, A.; Grieser, F.; Ashokkumar, M. Effect of Power and Frequency on Bubble-Size Distributions in Acoustic Cavitation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009, 102, 084302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Avvaru, B.; Pandit, A.B. Oscillating bubble concentration and its size distribution using acoustic emission spectra. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2009, 16, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, S.; Zong, Y.; Li, W.; Zhang, S.; Wan, M. Bubble size distribution in acoustic droplet vaporization via dissolution using an ultrasound wide-beam method. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2014, 21, 975–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reuter, F.; Lesnik, S.; Ayaz-Bustami, K.; Brenner, G.; Mettin, R. Bubble size measurements in different acoustic cavitation structures: Filaments, clusters, and the acoustically cavitated jet. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2019, 55, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvisi, M.L.; Lindau, O.; Blake, J.R.; Szeri, A.J. Shape stability and violent collapse of microbubbles in acoustic traveling waves. Phys. Fluids 2007, 19, 47101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akhatov, I.S.; Konovalova, S.I. Regular and chaotic dynamics of a spherical bubble. J. Appl. Math. Mech. 2005, 69, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Du, X. Stability mechanisms of oscillating vapor bubbles in acoustic fields. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2018, 40, 808–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Y. Chaotic oscillations of gas bubbles under dual-frequency acoustic excitation. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2018, 40, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegedűs, F.; Lauterborn, W.; Parlitz, U.; Mettin, R. Non-feedback technique to directly control multistability in nonlinear oscillators by dual-frequency driving: GPU accelerated topological analysis of a bubble in water. Nonlinear Dyn. 2018, 94, 273–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klapcsik, K.; Hegedűs, F. Study of non-spherical bubble oscillations under acoustic irradiation in viscous liquid. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2019, 54, 256–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klapcsik, K.; Hegedűs, F. The effect of high viscosity on the evolution of the bifurcation set of a periodically excited gas bubble. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2017, 104, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O. Numerical investigation of the effect of dual frequency sonication on stable bubble dynamics. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2018, 49, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O. Oxidants Emergence under Dual-Frequency Sonication within Single Acoustic Bubble: Effects of Frequency Combinations. Iran. J. Chem. Chem. Eng. 2021, 40, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burdin, F.; Tsochatzidis, N.; Guiraud, P.; Wilhelm, A.; Delmas, H. Characterisation of the acoustic cavitation cloud by two laser techniques. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 1999, 6, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duraiswami, R.; Prabhukumar, S.; Chahine, G.L. Bubble counting using an inverse acoustic scattering method. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 104, 2699–2717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O.; Alghyamah, A. Acoustic frequency and optimum sonochemical production at single and multi-bubble scales: A modeling answer to the scaling dilemma. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2021, 70, 105341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wayment, D.G.; Casadonte, D.J. Frequency effect on the sonochemical remediation of alachlor. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2002, 9, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koda, S.; Kimura, T.; Kondo, T.; Mitome, H. A standard method to calibrate sonochemical efficiency of an individual reaction system. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2003, 10, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mark, G.; Tauber, A.; Laupert, R.; Schuchmann, H.-P.; Schulz, D.; Mues, A.; von Sonntag, C. OH-radical formation by ultrasound in aqueous solution–Part II: Terephthalate and Fricke dosimetry and the influence of various conditions on the sonolytic yield. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 1998, 5, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiha, M.; Hamdaoui, O.; Baup, S.; Gondrexon, N. Sonolytic degradation of endocrine disrupting chemical 4-cumylphenol in water. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2011, 18, 943–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Didenko, Y.T.; Suslick, K.S. The energy efficiency of formation of photons, radicals and ions during single-bubble cavitation. Nature 2002, 418, 394–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, K.Y.; Byun, K.-T.; Kwak, H.-Y. Temperature and pressure fields due to collapsing bubble under ultrasound. Chem. Eng. J. 2007, 132, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merouani, S.; Hamdaoui, O.; Haddad, B. Acoustic cavitation in 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(triflluoromethyl-sulfonyl)imide based ionic liquid. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2018, 41, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulkarni, A.A.; Joshi, J.B. Bubble formation and bubble rise velocity in gas-liquid systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2005, 44, 5873–5931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandit, A.B.; Varley, J.; Thorpe, R.B.; Davidson, J. Measurement of bubble size distribution: An acoustic technique. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1992, 47, 1079–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.; Tzanakis, I.; Srirangam, P.; Terzi, S.; Mirihanage, W.U.; Eskin, D.G.; Mathiesen, R.H.; Horsfield, A.P.; Lee, P.D. In Situ Synchrotron Radiography of Ultrasound Cavitation in a Molten Al-10Cu Alloy. In Proceedings of the TMS 2015 Annual Meeting Supplemental Proceedings TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society), Orlando, FL, USA, 15–19 March 2015; pp. 61–66. [Google Scholar]
- Merouani, S.; Hamdaoui, O.; Rezgui, Y.; Guemini, M. Effects of ultrasound frequency and acoustic amplitude on the size of sonochemically active bubbles-Theoretical study. Ultrason Sonochemistry 2013, 20, 815–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caruthers, J.W. Lognormal bubble size distributions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2017, 142, 2534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O. Ultrasonic waveform upshot on mass variation within single cavitation bubble: Investigation of physical and chemical transformations. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2018, 42, 508–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yasui, K. Variation of Liquid Temperature at Bubble Wall near the Sonoluminescence Threshold. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 1996, 65, 2830–2840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuster, D.; Hauke, G.; Dopazo, C. Influence of the accommodation coefficient on nonlinear bubble oscillations. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 128, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O. Sonochemistry in Green Processes: Modeling, Experiments, and Technology. In Sustainable Green Chemical Processes and Their Allied Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; p. 603. [Google Scholar]
- Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O. Sonochemical production of hydrogen: Enhancement by summed harmonics excitation. Chem. Phys. 2019, 519, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasui, K.; Tuziuti, T.; Lee, J.; Kozuka, T.; Towata, A.; Iida, Y. The range of ambient radius for an active bubble in sonoluminescence and sonochemical reactions. J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 128, 184705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
r | Reaction r | Ar | br | Er/Rg (K) | ΔHr (kJ/mol) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | H + O2 ⇒ O + ●OH | 1.92 × 108 | 0 | 8270 | 69.17 |
2 | O + H2 ⇒ H● + ●OH | 5.08 × 10−2 | 2.67 | 3166 | 8.23 |
3 | ●OH + H2 ⇒ H● + H2O | 2.18 × 102 | 1.51 | 1726 | −64.35 |
4 | ●OH + ●OH ⇒ H2O + O | 2.1 × 102 | 1.4 | 200 | −72.59 |
5 | H2 + M ⇒ H● + H● + M; Coef. H2: 2.5, H2O: 16.0 | 4.58 × 1013 | −1.4 | 52,500 | 444.47 |
6 | O + O + M ⇒ O2 + M; Coef. H2: 2.5, H2O: 16.0 | 6.17 × 103 | −0.5 | 0 | −505.4 |
7 | O + H● + M ⇒ ●OH + M; Coef. H2O: 5.0 | 4.72 × 105 | −1.0 | 0 | −436.23 |
8 | H● + ●OH + M ⇒ H2O + M; Coef. H2: 2.5, H2O: 16.0 | 2.25 × 1010 | −2.0 | 0 | −508.82 |
9 | H● + O2 + M ⇒ HO2● + M; Coef. H2: 2.5, H2O: 16.0 | 2.00 × 103 | 0 | −500 | −204.8 |
10 | H● + HO2● ⇒ O2 + H2 | 6.63 × 107 | 0 | 1070 | −239.67 |
11 | H● + HO2● ⇒ ●OH + ●OH | 1.69 × 108 | 0 | 440 | −162.26 |
12 | O + HO2● ⇒ O2 + ●OH | 1.81 × 107 | 0 | −200 | −231.85 |
13 | ●OH + HO2● ⇒ O2 + H2O | 1.45 × 1010 | −1.0 | 0 | −304.44 |
14 | HO2● + HO2● ⇒ O2 + H2O2 | 3.0 × 106 | 0 | 700 | −175.35 |
15 | H2O2 + M ⇒ ●OH + ●OH + M; Coef. H2: 2.5, H2O: 16.0 | 1.2 × 1011 | 0 | 22,900 | 217.89 |
16 | H2O2 + H● ⇒ H2O + ●OH | 3.2 × 108 | 0 | 4510 | −290.93 |
17 | H2O2 + H● ⇒ H2 + HO2● | 4.82 × 107 | 0 | 4000 | −64.32 |
18 | H2O2 + O ⇒ ●OH + HO2● | 9.55 | 2 | 2000 | −56.08 |
19 | H2O2 + ●OH ⇒ H2O + HO2● | 1.00 × 107 | 0 | 900 | −128.67 |
20 | O3 + M ⇒ O2 + O + M; Coef. O2: 1.64; Coef. O2: 1.63, H2O: 15 | 2.48 × 108 | 0 | 11,430 | 109.27 |
21 | O3 + O ⇒ O2 + O2 | 5.2 × 106 | 0 | 2090 | −396.14 |
22 | O3 + ●OH ⇒ O2 + HO2● | 7.8 × 105 | 0 | 960 | −164.92 |
23 | O3 + HO2● ⇒ O2 + O2 + ●OH | 1 × 105 | 0 | 1410 | −121.92 |
24 | O3 + H● ⇒ HO2● + O | 9 × 106 | 0.5 | 2010 | −135.65 |
25 | O3 + H● ⇒ O2 + ●OH | 1.6 × 107 | 0 | 0 | −96.2 |
26 | O + ●OH ⇒ H + O2 | 7.18 × 105 | 0.36 | −342 | −69.17 |
27 | H● + ●OH ⇒ O + H2 | 2.64 × 10−2 | 2.65 | 2245 | −8.23 |
28 | H● + H2O ⇒ ●OH + H2 | 1.02 × 103 | 1.51 | 9370 | 64.35 |
29 | H2O + O ⇒●OH + ●OH | 2.21 × 103 | 1.4 | 8368 | 72.59 |
30 | H● + H● + M ⇒ H2 + M; Coef. H2: 2.5, H2O: 16.0 | 2.45 × 108 | −1.78 | 480 | −444.47 |
31 | O2 + M ⇒ O + O + M; Coef. H2: 2.5, H2O: 16.0 | 1.58 × 1011 | −0.5 | 59,472 | 505.4 |
32 | ●OH + M ⇒ O + H● + M; Coef. H2O: 5.0 | 4.66 × 1011 | −0.65 | 51,200 | 436.23 |
33 | H2O + M ⇒ H● + ●OH + M; Coef. H2: 2.5, H2O: 16.0 | 1.96 × 1016 | −1.62 | 59,700 | 508.82 |
34 | HO2● + M ⇒ H● + O2 + M; Coef. H2: 2.5, H2O: 16.0 | 2.46 × 109 | 0 | 24,300 | 204.8 |
35 | O2 + H2 ⇒ H● + HO2● | 2.19 × 107 | 0.28 | 28,390 | 239.67 |
36 | ●OH + ●OH ⇒ H● + HO2● | 1.08 × 105 | 0.61 | 18,230 | 162.26 |
37 | O2 + ●OH ⇒ O + HO2● | 3.1 × 106 | 0.26 | 26,083 | 231.85 |
38 | O2 + H2O ⇒ ●OH + HO2● | 2.18 × 1010 | −0.72 | 34,813 | 304.44 |
39 | O2 + H2O2 ⇒ HO2● + HO2● | 4.53 × 108 | −0.39 | 19,700 | 175.35 |
40 | ●OH + ●OH + M ⇒ H2O2 + M; Coef. H2: 2.5, H2O: 16.0 | 9.0 × 10−1 | 0.90 | −3050 | −217.89 |
41 | H2O + ●OH ⇒ H2O2 + H● | 1.14 × 103 | 1.36 | 38,180 | 290.93 |
42 | H2 + HO2● ⇒ H2O2 + H● | 1.41 × 105 | 0.66 | 12,320 | 64.32 |
43 | ●OH + HO2● ⇒ H2O2 + O | 4.62 × 10−3 | 2.75 | 9277 | 56.08 |
44 | H2O + HO2● ⇒ H2O2 + ●OH | 2.8 × 107 | 0 | 16,500 | 128.67 |
45 | O2 + O + M ⇒ O3 + M; Coef. O2: 1.64; Coef. O2: 1.63, H2O: 15 | 4.1 | 0 | −1057 | −109.27 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kerboua, K.; Hamdaoui, O.; Alghyamah, A. Numerical Characterization of Acoustic Cavitation Bubbles with Respect to the Bubble Size Distribution at Equilibrium. Processes 2021, 9, 1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9091546
Kerboua K, Hamdaoui O, Alghyamah A. Numerical Characterization of Acoustic Cavitation Bubbles with Respect to the Bubble Size Distribution at Equilibrium. Processes. 2021; 9(9):1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9091546
Chicago/Turabian StyleKerboua, Kaouther, Oualid Hamdaoui, and Abdulaziz Alghyamah. 2021. "Numerical Characterization of Acoustic Cavitation Bubbles with Respect to the Bubble Size Distribution at Equilibrium" Processes 9, no. 9: 1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9091546