Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ultrasonics Sonochemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ultson

A comprehensive numerical analysis of heat and mass transfer

phenomenons during cavitation sono-process
Aissa Dehane a, Slimane Merouani b, *, Oualid Hamdaoui c, *, Abdulaziz Alghyamah c
a
Laboratory of Environmental Engineering, Department of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Badji Mokhtar – Annaba University, P.O. Box 12, 23000 Annaba,
Algeria
b
Laboratory of Environmental Process Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Process Engineering, University Salah Boubnider-Constantine 3, P.O.
Box 72, 25000 Constantine, Algeria
c
Chemical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud University, P.O. Box 800, 11421 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present study treats the effects of mass transport, heat transfer and chemical reactions heat on the bubble
Cavitation sono-process dynamics by spanning a range of ambient bubble radii. The thermodynamic behavior of the acoustic bubble was
Mass transport shown for three wave frequencies, 355, 515 and 1000 kHz. The used acoustic amplitude ranges from 1 to 3 atm.
Heat transfer
It has been demonstrated that the ambient bubble radius, R0, of the maximal response (i.e., maximal bubble
Chemical reactions
temperature and pressure, Tmax and Pmax) is shifted toward lower values if the acoustic amplitude (at fixed
Numerical simulation
frequency) or the ultrasonic frequency (at fixed amplitude) are increased. The range of the ambient bubble radius
narrows as the ultrasonic frequency increases. Heat exchange at the bubble interface was found to be the most
important mechanism within the bubble internal energy balance for acoustic amplitudes lower than 2.5 and 3
atm for ultrasonic frequencies of 355 and 515 kHz, respectively. For acoustic amplitudes greater or equal to 2.5
and 3 atm, corresponding to 355 and 515 kHz, respectively, mass transport mechanism (i.e., evaporation and
condensation of water vapor) becomes dominant compared to the other mechanisms. At 1000 kHz, the mech­
anism of heat transfer persists to be dominant for all the used acoustic amplitudes (from 1 to 3 atm). Practically,
all the above observations were maintained for bubbles at and around the optimum bubble radius, whereas no
significant impact of the three energetic mechanisms was observed for bubbles of too lower and too higher values
of R0 (limits of the investigated ranges of R0).

radicals (e.g., ●OH, HO●2 and H ) and reactive species (e.g., H2O2) able
●

to initiate other secondary chemical reactions and emit light [16–18]. In

1. Introduction
Ultrasound has found a variety of technological applications, ranging
from cleaning [1], polymer synthesis [2], degradation of pollutants
[3,4] and fabrication of nano-particles [5,6] to biomedical applications
[7–9] and food science [10,11]. Acoustic cavitation is the central event
of all these technological applications. The ultrasonic irradiation of a
solution leads to the formation of acoustic cavitation. Bubbles can grow
and collapse violently [12]. The formed bubbles can be either stable
cavities, oscillating about some equilibrium size with a lifetime of many
cycles, or transient cavities, which exist for no more than a few acoustic
cycles [13]. The temperature and pressure inside the bubble increase up
to several thousand degrees Kelvin and several hundred bar, at the
strong collapse [14,15]. As a result, water vapor and non-condensable
gases present inside the hot spots leads to the formation of a variety of
other words, the acoustic cavitation concentrates diffused ultrasonic
energy into tiny hot spots that turn into micro-reactors in a fraction of a
second, which create three regions for high energy chemical reaction to
take place: inside the bubble, at the bubble–liquid interface and the
liquid bulk [19]. However, the extreme conditions attained at collapse
are very dependent on the experimental conditions such as acoustic
amplitude, wave frequency, liquid temperature, volume of sonicated
liquid, transducer dimensions, etc. [20–26].
Several experimental and theoretical works have been conducted in
order to improve the efficiency of the sonochemical process. For
example, Merouani et al. [27,28] investigated the impact of operational
conditions on the production of free radicals and the size of sono­
chemical active bubbles, where the theoretical studies were performed
for various acoustic powers, ultrasound frequencies, static pressures and

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: s.merouani@yahoo.fr (S. Merouani), ohamdaoui@ksu.edu.sa (O. Hamdaoui).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2021.105498
Received 27 December 2020; Received in revised form 5 February 2021; Accepted 15 February 2021
Available online 20 February 2021
1350-4177/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Dehane et al. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498

Nomenclature Tmax Maximum temperature inside a bubble, (K).

T∞ Bulk liquid temperature, (K).
Af (Ar) Pre-exponential factor of the forward (reverse) reaction, x Thermal diffusivity inside the bubble (m2/s)
[(cm3 mol− 1 s− 1) for two body reaction and (cm6 mol− 2 Cp Heat capacity concentration inside the bubble (J/m3 K)
s− 1) for three body reaction]. MH2O Molar mass of water (kg/mol).
bf (br) Temperature exponent of the forward (reverse) reaction. ṁ Evaporation-condensation rate of water (Kg/m2 s).
C Speed of sound in the liquid medium, (m s− 1). Q Energy transferred by heat exchange (J/s)
Eaf (Ear) Activation energy of the forward (reverse) reaction, (cal n Molar amount (mol).
mol− 1). PB Liquid pressure on the external side of the bubble wall. (Pa)
f Frequency of ultrasonic wave, (Hz). V Volume of the bubble (m3)
Ia Acoustic intensity of ultrasonic irradiation, (W m− 2).
kf (kr) Forward (reverse) reaction constant, [(cm3 mol− 1 s− 1) for Greek letters
two body reaction and (cm6 mol− 2 s− 1) for three body σ Surface tension of liquid water (N m− 1).
reaction]. ρL Density of liquid water, (kg m− 3).
p Pressure inside a bubble, (Pa). ρg Density inside the bubble (kg m− 3).
pmax Maximum pressure inside a bubble (Pa). λmix Thermal conductivity of the mixture(W m− 1 K).
p∞ Ambient static pressure, (Pa). λi Thermal conductivity of species i (W m− 1 K).
PA Amplitude of the acoustic pressure, (Pa). µ Dynamic viscosity (Pa s).
Pv Vapor pressure of water, (Pa). α Accommodation coefficient.
R Radius of the bubble, (m). ρH2O Density of water vapor inside the bubble (kg/m3).
Rmax Maximum radius of the bubble, (m). ρsat,H2O Saturated vapor density (kg/m3).
R0 Ambient bubble radius, (m). υki Stoichiometric coefficient of the kth chemical species in the
Rg Ideal gas constant (J/mol K). ith reaction.
t Time, (s). U̇k Production rate of the kth species (mol/s m3)
T Temperature inside a bubble, (K).

different liquid temperatures. Similarly, Yasui et al. [29–32] revealed the
dependence of sonochemical reactions on ambient pressure, wave fre­
quency, acoustic amplitude and liquid temperature. Hua et al. [33–35]
reported the effect of wave frequency and saturating gas (nature and
ratio) in order to optimize the sonochemical process considered as an
advanced oxidation technology. In addition, the effect of a hydroxyl
radical scavenger and bicarbonate ion was investigated [36,37].
On the other hand, different paths are adopted by different theo­
retical studies to better understand the effect of each of the energy pa­
rameters found in the bubble internal energy balance, such as mass
transport [38,39], chemical reactions heat [40,41], thermal conduction
[42], bulk liquid viscosity [43] and pressure force work [44]. Through
visualizing the literature, it was found that the impacts of the main
energetic terms of the internal bubble energy (i.e., mass transport, heat
exchange and reactions heat) were usually investigated for a unique
initial bubble size (i.e., considered as a mean value). However, the size of
active bubbles in sono-cavitating medium is an interval rather than a
single value, as demonstrated experimentally and theoretically [45–50].
Therefore, it is expected that each bubble will be affected differently
compared to the other ones. Thus, the effects of mass and heat transfer as
well as the reactions heat on the thermodynamic behavior of the
acoustic bubble could not be well revealed by the approach of the single
initial bubble radius. This is because of their initial bubble radius de­
pendency. Consequently, it is interesting to simulate and visualize the
impacts of the different energetic terms of the bubble energy balance (i.
e., mass transport, heat exchange and reactions heat) on a wide range of
ambient bubble radii in order to evaluate their effective influence on the
intensity of the bubble collapse (i.e. temperature, pressure and chemical
bubble yield).
In the light of the above facts and considerations, the present theo­
retical work aimed at clarifying the impacts on mass transport, heat
exchange and reactions heat on the bubble collapse by spanning a range
of ambient bubble radii and varying the acoustic amplitudes between 1
and 3 atm and the ultrasonic frequency in the range of 355–1000 kHz to
cover a wide range of sonochemical parameters. The numerical simu­
lations performed in this study are based on a model of a single bubble
oscillating in argon-saturated medium.
2. Model
The employed model is based on a set of ordinary differential
equations, where the effects of non-equilibrium evaporation and
condensation of water vapor at the bubble wall, thermal conduction
both inside and outside a bubble and chemical reactions are included.
All numerical simulations have been conducted for a bubble oscillating
in an argon-saturated water. Based on the above assumptions, temper­
ature, pressure, bubble radius evolution and bubble wall velocity can be
determined at any instant. The radial dynamics of the bubble is
described by the modified Keller-Miksis equation (Eq. (1)), developed by
Yasui [42]:

( ) ( ) ( )[ ( ( )) ]
Ṙ ṁ 3 2 Ṙ 2ṁ 1 Ṙ R
1− + RR̈ + Ṙ 1 − + = 1+ PB (t) − PA sin 2πf t + − P∞ +
C C ρL 2 3C 3CρL ρL C C
( ) ( ) (1)
m̈R Ṙ ṁ ṁ ṁ Ṙṁ R dPB
1− + + Ṙ + + +
ρL C C ρL ρL 2ρL 2CρL CρL dt

2
A. Dehane et al. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498

λmix
where dots denote the time derivative (d/dt), R is the radius of the χ= (12)
Cp
bubble, C the speed of sound in the liquid, ρL is the density of the liquid,
m● is the net rate of evaporation per unit area and unit time and P∞ is 3
where Cp is the heat capacity (J m− K− 1) for H2O and Ar mixture [53]:
the ambient static pressure. PA is correlated with the acoustic intensity Ia
(or power per unit area) as: PA= (2IaρLC)1/2. The liquid pressure PB(t) on ∑ fi + 2
Cp = k B Ci NA (13)
the external side of the bubble wall is related to the internal pressure P(t) 2
by the following equation [42]: Ci, kB, NA and fi are the molar concentration of species i (H2O and Ar)
2σ 4μ
(
ṁ
) (
1 1
) inside the bubble, Boltzmann constant, Avogadro number and the
PB (t) = P(t) − − Ṙ + − ṁ2 − (2) number of degrees of freedom of species i (fH2O = 6 and fAr = 3),
R R ρL ρL ρg
respectively.
where σ is the surface tension, µ is the liquid viscosity and ρg is the The temperature (T) inside the bubble is calculated by solving the
density inside the bubble. The internal pressure P(t) is calculated using following equation [42]:
Van der Waals equation (Eq. (3)): ∫T ∫T
an2
E = nH2 O Cv,H2 O (T)dT + nAr Cv,Ar (T)dT − (14)
nRg T an2 0 0 V
P(t) = + 2 (3)
(V − nb) V
where E is the internal energy of the bubble and CV,H2O(T) (Cv,Ar(T)) is
where a and b are the Van de Waals constants, Rg is the universal gas the isochoric heat capacity of vapor (argon) at temperature T, given as a
constant, V is the volume of the bubble [V = 4/3(πR3)], and T is the polynomial approximation (expressions are available in Ref. [54]).
temperature inside the bubble. The Van der Waals constants (a and b) The change of the internal energy of a bubble (ΔE) in time (Δt), due
are determined by [51]: to the pressure work, heat of chemical reactions within the bubble,
⎧ ( ) ( ) energy carried by water molecules by evaporation and condensation and
⎪ a = aH2 O nH2 O + aAr nAr
⎪
⎪ heat exchange by diffusion at the interface, is expressed by [42,43]:
⎨ nt nt
( ) ( ) (4) ( )
⎪
⎪ n H2 O nAr Δt Tliq − T 4
⎪
⎩ b = bH2 O + bAr ΔE = − P(t).ΔV(t) + 4πR2 ṁCv,H2O + 4πR2 Δtλ − πR3 Δt
nt nt M H2 O Lth 3
∑
25
m The mass flux of evaporation and condensation at the interface is
∙
× ΔHi ri
expressed using Hertz-Knudsen formula derived from kinetic theory of i=1

gases [52]:
where ΔHi and ri are the enthalpy change and the rate of the ith reaction,
[ ]
ρsat respectively. The first term in the right-hand side of Eq. 15 is the PV
g,H2 O − ρg,H2 O (R)
ṁ = αC(Ts ) (5) work. The second term is the energy carried by evaporating vapor from
4 the surrounding liquid into the bubble and by condensing vapor from
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ the bubble into the liquid in Δt. The third term is the energy change due
8Ts Rg to the thermal conduction. The last term is the heat of chemical reactions
C(Ts ) = (6)
πMH2 O taking place inside the bubble during the collapse.
In this work, a scheme of 25 reversible chemical reactions is
where α is the evaporation coefficient (considered constant α = 0.4), considered (Table 1), in which K chemical species is involved. These
C(Ts ) is the average velocity of molecules, ρg,H2O(R) is the density of series of reactions are the most important reactions occurring inside an
− 3
water vapor in the bubble, and ρsat
g,H2 O = 0.0173 kg m is the saturated argon/water vapor bubble, as stated in Refs. [55,56]. The chemical
vapor density. The temperature of the external bubble surface is Ts = mechanism of Table 1 has been partially validated by hydrogen flame
Tliq. studies [57] as well as shock-tube and reactor-type experiments [58].
Heat exchange inside and outside the bubble is estimated by [53]: The general form of these reversible reactions is given as follows:
( )
Tliq − T ∑
K ∑
K
(7) (16)
′
Q̇ = 4π R2 λmix υki Xk ↔ υ′′ki Xk
Lth k=1 k=1

{ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ }
R Rχ in which υki is the stoichiometric coefficient of the ith reaction and Xk is
Lth = min , (8)
π ∙
R the chemical symbol for the kth species. The superscript ‘ indicates for­
ward stoichiometric coefficients, while “ indicates reverse stoichio­
λmix, χ and Lth are the heat conductivity, thermal diffusivity of the gas metric coefficients. The production rate U̇k of the kth species can be
mixture and the thickness of the thermal boundary layer, respectively. written as a summation of the rate of the variables for all reactions
The thermal conductivity (λmix) is estimated by [32]: involving the kth species:
( ) ( )
n H2 O nAr
λmix = λH2 O (T) + λAr (T) (9) 1 dnk ∑
I
(17)
′
nt nt U̇ k = (υ′′ − υki )ri (k = 1, …, K)
V dt i=1 ki
where λH2O(T) and λAr(T) are the thermal conductivity of water vapor
and argon at temperature T (in K), respectively. The thermal conduc­ where nk is the number of moles of the kth species. The rate ri for the ith
tivity (in W m− 1 K− 1) of H2O and Ar are estimated by [51]: reaction is given as:
∏
K ∏
K
λH2 O (T) = 9.967213 × 10− 5 T − 1.1705 × 10− 2
(10) ri = kfi
′
[Xk ]υki − kri
′′
[Xk ]υki (18)
k=1 k=1
λAr (T) = 3.5887 × 10− 5 T + 6.81277 × 10− 3
(11)
where [Xk] is the molar concentration of the kth species and kfi and kri are
At the bubble wall, the thermal diffusivity (χ ) is estimated by [53]:
the forward and reverse rate constants of the ith reaction, respectively.

3
A. Dehane et al. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498

Table 1
Scheme of the possible chemical reactions inside a collapsing argon bubble [41,65]. M is the third Body. Subscript “f” denotes the forward reaction and “r” denotes the
reverse reaction. A is in (cm3 mol− 1 s− 1) for two body reaction [(cm6 mol− 2 s− 1) for a three body reaction], and Ea is in (cal mol− 1) and ΔH in (kcal mol− 1). For some of
the backward reactions, the constants are not listed. Those backward reactions are neglected during calculations.
Reaction Af nf Eaf Ar nr Ear ΔH
23 5 22
1 H2O + M ⇌ H + OH + M
● ●
1.912 × 10 − 1.83 1.185 × 10 2.2 × 10 − 2.0 0.0 121.72
2 O2 + M ⇌ O + O + M 4.515 × 1017 − 0.64 1.189 × 105 6.165 × 1015 − 0.5 0.0 120.91
3 ●
OH + M ⇌ O + H●+M 9.88 × 1017 − 0.74 1.021 × 105 4.714 × 1018 − 1.0 0.0 104.36
4 H●+O2 ⇌ O+●OH 1.915 × 1014 0.0 1.644 × 104 5.481 × 1011 0.39 − 2.93 × 102 16.54
5 H●+O2 + M ⇌ HO● 2 +M 1.475 × 1012 0.6 0.0 3.09 × 1012 0.53 4.887 × 104 − 49,0
6 O + H2O ⇌ ●OH+●OH 2.97 × 106 2.02 1.34 × 104 1.465 × 105 2.11 − 2.904 × 103 17.37
7 HO● 2 +H ⇌ H2 + O2
●
1.66 × 1013 0.0 8.23 × 102 3.164 × 1012 0.35 5.551 × 104 − 57.34
8 HO● 2 +H ⇌ OH+ OH
● ● ●
7.079 × 1013 0.0 2.95 × 102 2.027 × 1010 0.72 3.684 × 104 − 38.82
9 HO● 2 +O ⇌ OH + O2
●
3.25 × 1013 0.0 0.0 3.252 × 1012 0.33 5.328 × 104 − 55.47
10 HO● 2 + OH ⇌ H2O + O2
●
2.89 × 1013 0.0 − 4.97 × 102 5.861 × 1013 0.24 6.908 × 104 − 72.83
11 H2 + M ⇌ H●+H●+M 4.577 × 1019 − 1.4 1.044 × 105 1.146 × 1020 − 1.68 8.2 × 102 106.33
12 O + H2 ⇌ H●+●OH 3.82 × 1012 0.0 7.948 × 103 2.667 × 104 2.65 4.88 × 103 1.97
13 ●
OH + H2 ⇌ H●+H2O 2.16 × 108 1.52 3.45 × 103 2.298 × 109 1.40 1.832 × 104 − 15.4
14 H2O2 + O2 ⇌ HO● 2 +HO2
●
4.634 × 1016 − 0.35 5.067 × 104 4.2 × 1014 0.0 1.198 × 104 41.95
15 H2O2 + M ⇌ ●OH+●OH + M 2.951 × 1014 0.0 4.843 × 104 1.0 × 1014 − 0.37 0.0 52.13
16 H2O2 + H● ⇌ H2O+●OH 2.410 × 1013 0.0 3.97 × 103 1.269 × 108 1.31 7.141 × 104 − 69.6
17 H2O2 + H● ⇌ H2 + HO● 2 6.025 × 1013 0.0 7.95 × 103 1.041 × 1011 0.70 2.395 × 104 − 15.38
18 H2O2 + O ⇌ ●OH + HO● 2 9.550 × 106 2.0 3.97 × 103 8.66 × 103 2.68 1.856 × 104 − 13.42
19 H2O2+ OH ⇌ H2O + HO●
●
2 1.0 × 1012 0.0 0.0 1.838 × 1010 0.59 3.089 × 104 − 30.78
20 O3 + M ⇌ O2 + O + M 2.48 × 1020 0 2.27 × 104 – – – 26.14
21 O3 + O ⇌ O2 + O2 5.2 × 1018 0 4.157 × 103 – – – − 94.77
22 O3+ ●OH ⇌ O2 + HO● 2 7.8 × 1017 0 1.9 × 103 – – – − 39.46
23 O3 + HO● 2 ⇌ O2 + O2+ OH
●
1 × 1017 0 2.8 × 103 – – – − 29.17
24 H + O3 ⇌ HO2 +O
● ●
9 × 1018 0.5 3.99 × 103 – – – 32.45
25 H●+ O3 ⇌ ●OH + O2 1.6 × 1019 0 0 – – – − 23.01

The forward and reverse rate constants for the ith reactions are assumed Equation (14), (23) and (24) are solved using finite difference
to have the following Arrhenius temperature dependence: method. The outputs of these equations are the bubble wall velocity,
( ) evolution of the bubble radius, variation of bubble temperature and
Eafi
kfi = Afi T bfi exp − (19) pressure all along the bubble oscillation, respectively. The variation in
Rg T
time of number of moles of each species housed within the bubble is
( ) given by equations (21) and (22). The amount of argon remains un­
Eari
kri = Ari T bri exp − (20) changed during the bubble oscillation (chemically inert).
Rg T

where Rg is the universal gas constant, Afi (Ari) is the pre-exponential 3. Results and discussion
factor, bfi (bri) is the temperature exponent and Efi (Eri) is the activa­
tion energy. Arrhenius parameters of each chemical reaction are pre­ It should be noted here that only the case of a single bubble cavita­
sented in Table 1. tion is taken into account, where the different interactions between
The water vapor change with time inside the bubble, due to the bubbles in the sonicated liquid are ignored. Additionally, all simulations
evaporation and condensation at the bubble wall and due to chemical were conducted for argon-saturated water at 20 ◦ C, so, the initial bubble
reactions is given by: content is a mixture of water vapor and argon. The complete bubble-
dynamics model includes the liquid compressibility and viscosity, heat
nH2 O (t + Δt) = nH2 O (t) + 4πR2 Δt
ṁ
+ VΔtU̇ H2 O (21) transfer (i.e., thermal conduction through the bubble wall), mass
MH2O transfer (i.e., non-equilibrium condensation and evaporation of the
For other species k (except Ar): liquid vapor across the bubble/liquid interface), reaction kinetics
occurring inside the bubble (i.e., reactions heats are incorporated). In
nk (t + Δt) = nk (t) + VΔtU̇ k (22) the purpose to evaluate the effects of the different parameters injected
The modified Keller-Miksis equation (Eq. (1)), is a nonlinear second- into the energy equation of a single bubble, we will assess in the next
order differential equation, which can be reduced to a system of two sections the result of elimination of each of these parameters on single
differential first-order equations as bubble dynamics. The investigated cases are:

dR
= Ṙ (23) 1. Complete model with including all parameters (i.e., denoted as
dt Normal),
2. Model without heat transfer (i.e., denoted as Q● = 0),
3. Model without mass transfer (i.e., denoted as m● = 0),
⎧ ( )[ ( ) ⎫
⎪
( ( )) ]
m̈R Ṙ ṁ ⎪ 4. Model without reaction heats (i.e., denoted as ΔH = 0).
⎪ 1 1+ Ṙ PB (t)− PA sin 2πf t+ R
⎪
⎪ − P ∞ + 1− + +⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ρL C C ρL C C ρL ⎪
⎬
( ) ( )
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
ṁ ṁ
Ṙ+ +
Ṙṁ
+
R dPB 3 2
− Ṙ 1−
Ṙ
+
2ṁ ⎪
⎪
⎪ 3.1. Bubble radius evolution
⎩ ρL 2ρL 2CρL CρL dt 2 3C 3CρL ⎭
dṘ
= ( )
dt In Fig. 1(a) and (b), the effect of each of the four models on the
1− CṘ +Cṁρ R evolution of the bubble radius as a function of time is shown for one
L

acoustic cycle (2.81 µs). The ultrasound frequency is 355 kHz and the
(24)
acoustic amplitude is PA = 2.5 atm. The ambient bubble radius and the

4
A. Dehane et al. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498

14 14000

(a) 12000
(a)
12
310
10000 290
10

Temperature (K)
270
Radius (µm)

8000 250
8 13.3
230
6000
210
6 13.1 190
4000
170
4 12.9
0.2 0.7 1.2 1.7
2000

2 12.7 0
1.4 1.9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0 Time (µs)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (µs) Normal Q=0 m=0

Normal Q=0 m=0

12000

(b) 10500
4 10000 10000

(b) 9500

Temperature (K)
3.5 8000 9000

8500
3 1 6000
8000

0.9 7500
Radius (µm)

2.5 4000
7000
0.8
6500
2 2000 2.396 2.397
0.7
1.5 0
0.6
2.34 2.36 2.38 2.4 2.42
1 0.5
Time (µs)
2.395 2.397
Normal Q=0 m=0
0.5
2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5
Time (µs) Fig. 2. (a): The temperature inside the bubble as a function of time for the four
Normal Q=0 m=0 adopted models (normal, without thermal conduction, without mass transfer
and without reactions heat). Figure (b) is an enlarged view of Figure (a) at
around the end of the bubble collapse (simulation conditions: R0 = 3.2 µM, f:
Fig. 1. (a): The bubble radius as a function of time for the four adopted models
(normal, without thermal conduction, without mass transfer and without re­ 355 kHz, PA: 2.5 atm).
actions heat). Figure (b) is an enlarged view of Figure (a) at around the end of
the bubble collapse (simulation conditions: R0 = 3.2 µM, f: 355 kHz, PA:
2.5 atm). 9000

8000
ambient pressure (i.e., external static pressure) are 3.2 µm [50] and 1
atm, respectively. From Fig. 1(a), it is seen that during the rarefaction 7000

phase, when thermal conduction through the bubble wall is ignored, 6000
Pressure (atm)

Rmax has a lower value (12.88 µm) compared to its values in the other
5000
models. Rmax for the model without mass transfer (13.23 µm) is slightly
lower than the case of the model without reactions heat and the normal 4000
model, which give the same Rmax (13.33 µm).
3000
As it is expected, at the strong collapse some delay is observed be­
tween implosion times (Fig. 1(b)), which are given as follows: 2.364 µs 2000
for the model without thermal conduction, 2.383 µs for the model 1000
without mass transport, 2.3966 µs for the complete model and the model
without reactions heat. On the other hand, minimal radii’s are classified 0
2.355 2.365 2.375 2.385 2.395 2.405
in a decreasing order as follows: thermal conduction elimination case:
Time(µs)
0.90 µm, model without mass transport: 0.68 µm, model without re­
actions heat: 0.67 µm and the normal model: 0.62 µm. In order to un­ Normal Q=0 m=0

derstand the bubble radius evolution exhibited by the different systems

adopted herein, we should take into account the internal bubble tem­
perature and pressure as well as the bubble wall velocity during the
expansion and the strong bubble collapse. All these parameters are
treated in detail in the next sections.
Fig. 3. The pressure inside the bubble as a function of time for the four adopted
models (normal, without thermal conduction, without mass transfer and
without reactions heat). (Simulation conditions: R0 = 3.2 µM, f: 355 kHz, PA:
2.5 atm).

5
A. Dehane et al.
300
200
100
Wall velocity (m/s)
0
-350
-100 -370
-390
-200 -410
-430
-300 -450
-470
-400 -490
-500
-510
-530
2.395
-600
2.34 2.36 2.38 2.4 2.42
Time (µs)
Normal Q=0 m=0
Fig. 4. The wall velocity of the bubble as a function of time for the four
adopted models (normal, without thermal conduction, without mass transfer
and without reactions heat). (Simulation conditions: R0 = 3.2 µM, f: 355 kHz,
PA: 2.5 atm).
3.2. Bubble temperature/pressure and bubble wall velocity evolutions
In Figs. 2–4, the bubble temperature, pressure and wall velocity
evolutions were plotted under the same simulation conditions of Fig. 1.
The different previous retrieved values of Rmax can be explained by the
internal energy expression of a single bubble. According to Fig. 2(a) and
(b), the effect of the thermal conduction elimination has a huge impact
on bubble internal energy. During the expansion, bubble loses some
work, which has a small contribution compared to other terms, because
the pressure inside the bubble during the slow expansion is extremely
low. This work should be recovered by thermal conduction and water
evaporation toward the bubble interior. However, by eliminating this
heat transfer, bubble will not be able to reach the Rmax of the normal
model (i.e., where all the energetic parameters are present), due to the
energy deficit. In addition, according to Van der Waals equation, it is
clear that due to the excess of temperature decrease, the maximal radius
in this case is found to be lower than that in the other models. During
bubble expansion, the internal energy of the bubble increases due to the
flow energy accompanied by evaporating vapor molecules (and thermal
conduction). Nevertheless, the eliminated non-equilibrium evaporation
and condensation seems to have a little effect on the bubble expansion
compared to the model without thermal conduction (Fig. 2(a)-(b)).
Because water evaporation does not have a higher energetic impact on
bubble internal energy compared to the thermal conduction during the
expansion phase, so that Rmax in this case is slightly lower that the last
models (model without reactions heat and normal one). For the model
without reactions heat and the normal model, Rmax is the same, which is
a logical result because no reaction is considered during the slow
expansion (low temperature), so that the two cases give the same result.
During the compression phase, the different models exhibit different
behaviors at the strong collapse. It is seen from Fig. 2(b) that the
maximal temperature attained by elimination of thermal conduction
mechanism increases up to 11600 K. When vapor condensation is
ignored during the compression phase, the strong collapse in this case
gives a peak temperature of
10500 K. In turn, the elimination of reactions heat exhibits a peak
temperature of 10100 K, which is in the same range as the previous
cases. Finally, the normal model gives the lowest maximal temperature,
where the bubble is heated up to a temperature of 8450 K, which is
clearly lower than that of the previous models. From Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 3,
which gives the pressure profile inside the bubble for 0.05 µs around the
end of the bubble collapse, it is shown that in spite of the lower maximal
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498
pressure (3100 atm) retrieved at collapse when thermal conduction is
ignored, the bubble maximal temperature increases up to 11600 K
(under 2.5 atm and 355 kHz). This maximal temperature originates
mainly from the effect of thermal conduction, because, during the
compression phase, internal energy of a single bubble increases
considerably due to the work applied by the external liquid on the
bubble wall. However, in turn, thermal conduction and vapor conden­
sation (due to the higher vapor pressure) contribute to decrease this
internal energy. Therefore, in our case, the elimination of thermal
conduction prevents an important quantity of energy to be carried out of
a bubble especially at the end of the strong collapse. Consequently, it
seems from Fig. 3 and the Van der Waals equation that the increase of
pressure is unable to reach the temperature increase, so that bubble
2.397 expands more by giving the higher Rmin value compared to the other
models. In addition, the decrease of the maximal bubble-pressure re­
2.44
duces also the vapor condensation, which increases necessarily the
bubble internal energy. It should be noted here that the elimination of
the thermal conduction mechanism has an important effect especially
where liquid temperature on the external bubble wall is considered
constant even during the compression phase according to the adopted
thermal model used in our study [59]. In fact, the thermal mechanism
(into the bubble internal energy) is based on the model adopted by
Toegel et al. [53], where the external temperature on the bubble wall is
considered constant. Consequently, the heat carried out of the bubble
will be important during the compression phase (in reality the temper­
ature is increased for a very short time). Conversely, for the model
without heat exchange, where no heat transfer is made, the energy
prevented to get outside the bubble during the compression will be huge,
which means that the bubble temperature will be largely increased.
Therefore, the elimination of thermal conduction has an important ef­
fect, especially for our case where the temperature at the bubble wall is
considered constant (during the rarefaction and compression phase).
These results are in line with the work of Yasui [42,54].
From Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, it is found that the collapse in the case of
models with thermal conduction is stronger than that for the model
without thermal conduction, which is confirmed by the lower velocity
and pressure attained at collapse by the model without thermal con­
duction. On the other hand, the model without mass transport reveals at
this stage (compression phase) a peak temperature of 10500 K and a
maximal pressure of 6900 atm at the strong collapse. This increase of
temperature is interpreted as follows: in the normal model, during the
rarefaction phase, a huge amount of water vapor enters the bubble,
resulting in an increased heat capacity. Therefore, during the compres­
sion phase, this large quantity of water vapor contributes to lowering the
bubble temperature due to its large heat capacity and vapor condensa­
tion resulting from the higher vapor pressure inside the bubble. How­
ever, in case when mass transport is ignored, a smaller amount of water
vapor (large heat capacity) is trapped inside the bubble during the slow
expansion phase, which means that the heat capacity is not largely
increased; therefore, the bubble temperature is increased more at the
strong collapse. During the rapid collapse and when the bubble internal
energy is increased by the external liquid work, a very small amount of
energy is carried out by vapor condensation due to the smaller quantity
of water vapor present during this compression phase. It should be noted
that the work received during compression in this case is greater than
the previous case (without thermal conduction), which contributes more
in the temperature increase. Due to the small amount of water present
inside the bubble during the compression period, it is obvious that a
small quantity of substances will be produced as a result of water ther­
mal dissociation, which contributes more to increase the bubble internal
energy (and bubble temperature). Besides, it is well known that most
chemical reactions taking place into the bubble are endothermal
[40,54]. Consequently, in case of eliminated mass transport, it results
that the absence of a large amount of water vapor inside the bubble has
an important role in the internal energy increase. Bearing in mind all
these arguments, we conclude that mass transport has an important
6
A. Dehane et al. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498

effect, which becomes more pronounced especially at the higher
acoustic amplitudes as it will be discussed later. Conversely to the case of
without thermal conduction, collapses for all other cases are stronger,
due to the higher bubble wall velocity and pressure reached at the end of
collapse, as stated in Figs. 3 and 4. These findings are in good agreement
with those found by Toegel et al. [60] and Hilgenfeldt et al. [61].
The results provided by the model without reactions heat reveal an
immense impact on bubble internal energy. In Fig. 2(b), the maximal
temperature reached in this case is 10100 K compared to the normal
model, where the peak temperature is 8450 K, which means an increase
of 16.34%. On the other hand, the maximal pressure attained by the
normal model (7870 atm) is greater than that found in the case when
reactions heat is ignored (7600 atm), with a difference of 270 atm. The
minimal radii obtained by the normal model and that when reactions
heat is ignored are 0.62 µm and 0.67 µm, respectively, which means a
difference of 7.5%. The increase of temperature observed in case of
ignored reactions heat is due to the endothermal character of the most
chemical reactions taking place inside the bubble (see. Table 1).
Consequently, this amount of ignored reactions heat is used to increase
the internal energy of the bubble. Taking, of course, into account the
external work of the sonicated liquid (increases the internal energy), and
thermal conduction, which participate to decrease the bubble internal

Normal m=0
Q m=0 Normal Q=0 m=0
4
2
1.8
(a) 3.5
(b)
1.6 3

Rmax/Rmin
1.4 2.5
Rmax/R

1.2
2
1
0.8 1.5
0.6 1
0.4 0.5
0.2
0
0 14 8 5 4 3 2 1 0.5
14 8 5 4 3 2 1 0.5
R (µm) R (µm)

Normal Q=0 m=0 Normal Q=0 m=0

1.8 (c) 3.5
(d)
1.5 3
Rmax/Rmin

2.5
1.2
Rmax/R

2
0.9
1.5
0.6
1
0.3 0.5
0 0
14 8 5 4 3 2 1 0.5 14 8 5 4 3 2 1 0.5

R (µm) R (µm)

Normal Q=0 m=0 Normal Q=0 m=0

1.6
(e) 3
(f)
1.4
2.5
1.2
Rmax/Rmin

1 2
Rmax/R

0.8 1.5
0.6
1
0.4

0.2 0.5

0 0
9 6 5 4 3 2 1 0.5 9 6 5 4 3 2 1 0.5
R (µm) R (µm)

Fig. 5. The maximum expansion and compression ratios, Rmax/R0 and Rmax/Rmin, for the model without mass transport, without thermal conduction and the model
without the reactions heat compared to the normal model on a range of ambient bubble radius (simulation conditions: PA = 1 atm, f = 355 kHz for (a) and (b), f =
500 kHz for (c) and (d) and f = 1000 kHz for (e) and (f)). [Normal: model with the integral form of bubble internal energy balance, Q● = 0: model without thermal
conduction, m● = 0: model without mass transport, ΔH = 0: model without the reactions heat].

7
A. Dehane et al. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498

energy. Therefore, the maximal bubble-temperature is increased.
It has been shown in Fig. 1(b) that the minimal bubble radius reached
in the case of ignored reactions heat (0.67 µm) is greater than that fur­
nished by the normal model (0.62 µm) by 7.5%. This is explained by the
fact that when the reactions heat is ignored, pressure increase is unable
to reach the temperature increase according to the Van Der Waals
equation, so that Rmin in this case is greater than that of the normal
model. Another factor that may contribute to the internal energy in­
crease is the lower internal pressure (ignored reactions heat case). This is
because vapor condensation in this case will not be promoted due to the
lower vapor pressure attained inside the bubble during the compression
phase. Compared to the previous case (mass transport), it seems that
collapses obtained in cases without reactions heat and the normal-model
case are more violent, which is explained by the higher pressures and
speed attained at collapse, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The results of this
case reveal the importance of the chemical reactions heat compared to
thermal conduction and mass transport mechanisms. The results in this
part of work are in good agreement with those found by Kerboua et al.
[40] and Yasui et al. [54].
According to the previous results, it has been shown that mass
transport, thermal conduction and chemical reactions heat each of them
has the great importance in the global energy balance of a single bubble.
However, until now we have treated only the case where ambient radius,
ultrasound frequency and the acoustic amplitude are fixed. To extent our

355 kHz 500 kHz 1000 kHz

1400 1200 900
(a): 1 atm (f): 1 atm 800
(k): 1 atm
1200
1000
700
1000
800 600
800 500

T (K)
T(K)
T (K)

600
600 400

400 Normal 400 300

Normal Normal
Q=0
m=0 Q=0 200 Q=0
200 200 m=0 m=0
100
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8
R (µm) R (µm) R (µm)

4500 3000 1800

(b): 1.5 atm (l): 1.5 atm
4000 (g): 1.5 atm 1600
2500
3500 1400
3000 2000 1200
2500 1000
T(K)

T (K)
T(K)

1500
2000 800
1500 1000 600
Normal Normal
1000 Q=0 Normal 400
Q=0 Q=0
500 m=0 500 m=0
m=0 200
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8
R (µm) R (µm) R (µm)

12000 8000 3500

(c): 2 atm (h): 2 atm (m) 2 atm
7000 3000
10000 :
6000
2500
8000 5000
Normal 2000
T(K)

Normal
T(K)

T (K)

Normal 4000 Q=0

6000 Q=0 Q=0
m=0 1500 m=0
m=0 3000
4000
2000 1000
2000 1000 500

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8
R (µm) R (µm) R (µm)

Fig. 6. Maximum bubble-temperature profiles for the effect of mass transport, reactions heat and the thermal conduction mechanisms as a function of R0 for different
frequencies and various acoustic amplitudes (simulation conditions: PA = 1–3 atm f = 355 kHz (a-e), f = 500 kHz (f-j) and f = 1000 kHz for (k-o)). [Normal: model
with the integral form of bubble internal energy balance, Q● = 0: model without thermal conduction, m● = 0: model without mass transport, ΔH = 0: model without
the reactions heat].

8
A. Dehane et al. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498

24000 16000 7000

(d): 2.5 atm (i): 2.5 atm (n): 2.5 atm
21000 14000 6000
18000 12000 5000
15000 10000
4000

T (K)
T(K)
T(K)

12000 8000 Normal Normal

Normal
Q=0 Q=0 3000 Q=0
9000 m=0 6000 m=0 m=0
2000
6000 4000
3000 2000 1000

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8
R (µm) R (µm) R (µm)

35000 25000 12000

(e): 3 atm (j): 3 atm (o): 3 atm
30000 10000
20000
25000
8000
15000
20000
T(K)

T (K)
T(K)

Normal 6000
Normal Normal
15000 Q=0 10000 Q=0 Q=0
m=0 m=0 4000 m=0
10000
5000
5000 2000

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8
R (µm) R (µm) R (µm)

Fig. 6. (continued).

study, these parameters should be varied. To address this, in the next
section, models without mass transport, thermal conduction or reactions
heat are compared to the normal model in detail, taking into account the
change of ambient bubble radius with relation to ultrasonic frequency
and the acoustic power.
3.3. Models effects-dependence of ambient bubble size and operating
conditions
The effects of excluding mass transport, thermal conduction and the
reactions heat from the normal model are investigated on a wide range
of ambient bubble radius (R0). The resulted effect on the maximum
bubble expansion (Rmax/R0) and compression (Rmax/Rmin) are shown in
Fig. 5(a)-(f) for an acoustic amplitude of 1 atm and various frequencies
(355, 500 and 100 kHz).
According to Fig. 5(a)-(f), the effect of mass and heat transfers as well
as the reaction heats on acoustic cavitation depends to the ambient
bubble size (R0) and the ultrasound frequency. It is found that the effect
of these energetic parameters increases with the increase of acoustic
amplitude or the decrease of the ultrasound frequency. For PA = 1 atm,
the maximal expansion and compression ratios are observed at around
R0 = 4 µm for 355 kHz, R0 = 3 µm for 500 kHz and R0 = 2 µm for 1000
kHz (Fig. 5(a)-(f)). This shift of the maximal response is due to the
decrease of the ultrasound frequency, as discussed in depth in Refs.
[18,28,62]. Besides, Fig. 5(a)-(f) clearly show that the effect of the three
investigated energetic parameters (reaction heats and mass and heat
transfer) starts to be intense from the lower ambient bubble radii, and
then arrives to the maximum where the peak temperatures and pressures
are attained (Figs. 6 and 7, which will be discussed later), where the
effect of each of these mechanisms is strong. After that, the intensity of
these effects is decreased with the increase of the ambient bubble radius.
One other important statement that can be made from Fig. 5(a)-(f) is that
the exclusion each of the three mechanisms (reaction heats and mass and
heat transfers) has an insignificant impact on both (Rmax/R0) and (Rmax/
Rmin) responses at the limits of the investigated intervals of R0 (i.e., much
higher and much lower values). Correspondingly, the obvious effect of
the three mechanisms observed at the optimum R0 values (4 µm for 355
kHz, 3 µm for 500 kHz and 2 µm for 1000 kHz) tend to be disappeared
when going on right and left of these values until reaching the same
responses at higher and lower values of R0. Therefore, the effect of
excluding mass and heat transfer from the energy equation of the single
bubble is strongly dependent on the initial bubble size; the conclusion
which will be confirmed in the following section based on the maximum
temperature and pressure responses.
Fig. 6(a)-(o) and Fig. 7(a)-(o) show the impact the three scenarios
(without heat transfer, without mass transfer and with ignoring reaction
heats) on the maximum temperature and pressures reached at the
collapse for various ambient bubble sizes, various frequencies and
diverse acoustic amplitudes. The range of the acoustic amplitude is from
1 to 3 atm. The used ultrasonic frequencies are 355, 500 and 1000 kHz.
The liquid ambient temperature and the ambient pressure are 20 ◦ C and
1 atm, respectively.
We have seen in paragraph 3.2 that the maximal bubble temperature
is attained by the model that ignores thermal conduction (Fig. 2(b)).
However, this result was observed for an ambient bubble radius of 3.2
µm, ultrasonic frequency of 355 kHz and acoustic amplitude of 2.5 atm.
Temperature profiles of Fig. 6(a)-(o) show that is not always the case.
According to these plots, either we fix the ultrasonic frequency and then
we interpret the ignorance effect of one of the previous mechanisms
according to the acoustic amplitude variation and the ambient bubble
radius range or we do the opposite. Nevertheless, in our case, we opt to
fix the acoustic amplitude and then we try to reveal the effect of these
mechanisms (mass transport, thermal conduction and reactions heat) on
the bubble temperature and pressure, taking into account the ultrasonic

9
A. Dehane et al. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498

355 kHz 500 kHz 1000 kHz

45 40 25
(a): 1 atm (f): 1 atm
40 35 (k): 1 atm
35 30 20
30
25

P (atm)
Normal 15

P (atm)
Normal
P (atm)

25 Normal
Q=0 20 Q=0 Q=0
20 m=0 m=0
15 m=0 10
15
10 10
5
5 5
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10
R (µm) R (µm) R (µm)

1200 500 140

(b): 1.5 atm (g): 1.5 atm (l): 1.5 atm
1000 120
400
100
800
P (atm)

300
P (atm)

P (atm)
80
600 Normal Normal
200 Q=0 60 Q=0
Normal m=0 m=0
400 Q=0 40
m=0 100
200 20

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8
R (µm) R (µm) R (µm)
14000 6000 900
(c): 2 atm (h): 2 atm 800 (m): 2 atm
12000
5000
700
10000
4000 600
P (atm)

8000
P (atm)

P (atm)

500
3000
6000 400
Normal Normal
Normal 2000 Q=0 300 Q=0
4000 Q=0 m=0 m=0
m=0 200
2000 1000
100
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8
R (µm) R (µm) R (µm)

Fig. 7. Maximum pressure (inside the bubble) profiles for the effect of mass transport, reactions heat and the thermal conduction mechanisms as a function of R0 for
different frequencies and various acoustic amplitudes (simulation conditions: PA = 1–3 atm, f = 355 kHz (a-e), f = 500 kHz (f-j) and f = 1000 kHz for (k-o)). [Normal:
model with the integral form of bubble internal energy balance, Q● = 0: model without thermal conduction, m● = 0: model without mass transport, ΔH = 0: model
without the reactions heat].

frequency change and the range of ambient bubble radius. In fact, it has
been well established that increasing the acoustic intensity acts exactly
as a decrease in the frequency of ultrasound [27,31,44,63].
As a general observation, it is shown from Fig. 6(a)-(o) and Fig. 7(a)-
(o) that the maximum bubble temperature at the collapse is increased
with the acoustic amplitude increase or the ultrasound frequency
decrease. These results are in line with those reported by many theo­
retical works [21,30,64]. However, for the small bubble radii, some
interferences are observed in the temperature and pressure profiles for
the treated models. This can be explained by the effects of bubble size in
this range of ambient bubble radius as follow: firstly, due to the small
ambient bubble size, a small amount of water vapor is expected to be
housed into the bubble at the end of expansion phase, with the exception
of the model without mass transport. However, for this bubble radius the
difference of vapor amount is not significant between the model without
mass transport and the normal model. The expansion ratio (Rmax/R0) for
these small bubble radii is relatively lower than that of bubbles of a
larger R0. Secondly, during the compression phase, because of the lower
expansion ratio, a lower amount of produced substances is expected, so
that the bubble energy balance will not be largely affected by the
elimination of the reactions heat, which means that the response of
normal model is the same as the model without reactions heat. On the

10
A. Dehane et al. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498

60000 30000 4500

(d): 2.5 atm (i): 2.5 atm 4000 (n): 2.5 atm
50000 25000
3500
40000 20000 3000
P (atm)

P (atm)

P (atm)
2500
30000 15000 Normal
2000 Q=0
Normal Normal
20000 Q=0 10000 1500 m=0
Q=0
m=0 m=0 1000
10000 5000
500
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8
R (µm) R (µm) R (µm)

120000 80000 16000

(e): 3 atm (j): 3 atm (o): 3 atm
70000 14000
100000
60000 12000
80000
50000 10000
P (atm)

P (atm)

P (atm)
60000 40000 8000
Normal Normal
Normal
30000 Q=0 6000 Q=0
40000 Q=0
m=0 m=0
m=0 20000 4000
20000
10000 2000
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
R (µm) R (µm) R (µm)

Fig. 7. (continued).

other hand, due to the lower expansion ratio, a small reduction of the
heat capacity of the bubble is expected for the model without mass
transport compared to the normal model, so that the two models give the
same response. Finally, as result of the short time of compression and the
lower expansion ratio, the heat conduction during the compression
phase for the normal model is very lower due to the lower bubble sur­
face, which implies that the peak temperature obtained by this model is
relatively the same as the model without a thermal conduction. These
interferences are also observed at the relatively larger ambient bubble
radii for each of the acoustic amplitudes and the ultrasound frequencies
(Fig. 6(a)-(o) and Fig. 7(a)-(o)). This is because of the lower expansion
and compression ratios (Fig. 5) as well as the huge amount of water
contained inside the bubbles. The result is a milder collapse, which
means that the effect of each of these mechanisms is hidden in this range
of ambient bubble radius.
On the other hand, the maximal response (maximum effect) is
observed in a defined region of ambient bubble radius depending on the
acoustic amplitude and the ultrasound frequency. In this region,
acoustic parameters (amplitude and frequency) and the ambient bubble
size are pertinent to exhibit the maximal possible intensity of effect. At
the acoustic amplitude of 1 atm, it is clear that the higher temperatures
are attained in case of the model without thermal conduction for the
three frequencies (355, 500 and 1000 kHz). The maximal temperatures
given by this model for the ultrasound frequencies of 355, 500 and 1000
kHz are 1200, 1050 and 810 K, respectively. In case of the normal model
and also models without mass transport and reactions heat, the maximal
temperatures are given at around 1050, 880 and 570 K for the ultra­
sound frequencies 355, 500 and 1000 kHz, respectively. Besides, as it is
discussed previously (section 3.2), model without thermal conduction
provides the lowest maximal pressure compared to the other cases, the
peak pressures are 18, 15 and 12 atm for, respectively, 355, 500 and
1000 kHz. For the model without mass transport, maximal pressures are
slightly lower than those retrieved for without reactions-heat model and
the normal model. It should be noted here that the numerical results
found under each acoustic amplitude are interpreted in the same way as
in case of single bubble radius of 3.2 µm (section 3.2). However, many
points of interference are retrieved between the temperature profiles of
the model without mass transport, reactions heat and even the normal
one, which are explained by the lower acoustic amplitude used in this
level. Pressure profiles of Fig. 7(a), 7(f) and 7(k) are slightly clear
compared to the temperature profiles of Fig. 6(a), 6(f) and 6(k). The
lowest pressure values are observed for the model without thermal
conduction, followed by the model without mass transport. However,
the higher values of pressure are given by the model without reactions
heat and the normal model.
At the acoustic amplitude of 1.5 atm, Fig. 6(b), 6(g) and 6(l), it seen
that the distancing of the temperature profile, between especially the
model without mass transport and the other models, becomes slightly
clear at the ultrasound frequencies of 355 kHz and 500 kHz compared to
1000 kHz, probably because at 1000 kHz, the acoustic amplitude is not
stronger enough to reveal the effect of each of these models. The dif­
ference between the temperature profiles of the model without mass
transport and the other models, especially toward the maximal tem­
perature, can be explained by the effect of acoustic amplitude. This is
because mass transport mechanism starts to show its effect in the en­
ergetic balance of a bubble at PA = 1.5 atm. However, this impact is not
sufficiently larger than that of the other models. It is found for all the
models adopted here that the maximal responses (maximal tempera­
tures) are shifted toward the lower ambient bubble sizes, which is in
good agreement with the results found by Yasui et al. [18] and Merouani
et al. [28,62]. At this acoustic amplitude (1.5 atm), the model without
thermal conduction persists to be dominant compared to the other
models. Pressure profiles at this level of acoustic amplitude have the
same trend as in the previous acoustic amplitude (1 atm).

11
A. Dehane et al.
At the acoustic amplitude of 2 atm, the maximal temperatures are
clearly shifted toward the lower ambient bubble radius, ~ 2 µm. It is
seen from Fig. 6(c), 6(h) and 6(m) that the peak temperatures are
raised for all the ultrasound frequencies. For this acoustic amplitude (2
atm), the maximum temperatures retrieved for the model without re­
actions heat are higher than those of the normal model by a difference
of 1800 K at the frequency of 355 kHz, which is due principally to the
elimination of the reactions heat from the bubble energy balance. Even
at this acoustic amplitude, model without thermal conduction remains
dominant compared to the other models for all the ultrasonic fre­
quencies. However, it is found that the response of the model without
mass transport becomes more intense than those of the without-
reactions heat and the normal models for the ultrasound frequency of
355 kHz. This is because the increase of the acoustic amplitude shifts
the maximal response toward the lower ambient bubble radius. In
addition, it is seen before for a bubble radius of 3.2 µm (PA = 2.5 atm, f
= 355 kHz) that the expansion ratio of the bubble for the normal model
or the model without reactions heat is greater than that of the model
without mass transport. This contributes more to increase the heat
capacity in these models compared to the model without mass trans­
port. Therefore, during the compression phase, model without mass
transport seems to be more dominant than the model without reactions
heat, due to its lower amount of vapor (lower heat capacity) and
consequently lower quantity of created species (decreases the energy
consumption) at collapse. The maximum temperatures for the ultra­
sound frequencies of 500 and 1000 kHz are shifted to ~1.8 and ~1.6
µm of R0, respectively.
For PA = 2.5 atm and 355 kHz, the predominance of the model
without mass transfer is clear for the maximum bubble temperature, in
which the optimum ambient bubble radius is moved to ~0.8 µm, giving
a maximal temperature of 20000 K (Fig. 6(d)). The model without
thermal conduction gives a maximal temperature of 13600 K at around
1.4 µm. However, the model without reactions heat gives a peak tem­
perature of 11700 K compared to the normal model that provides 8800
K, which means an increase of 24.8%. On the other hand, maximal
pressures are increased to 50000, 4300, 3700 and 18200 atm for,
respectively, the model without reactions heat model, the model
without mass transport and the model without thermal conduction
(Fig. 7(d)). For the other ultrasound frequencies, 500 and 1000 kHz, the
model without thermal conduction persists to be dominant compared to
the other cases, which is due to the increase of ultrasonic frequency
which reduces the intensity of the bubble collapse.
The application of an acoustic amplitude of 3 atm under the ul­
trasound frequencies of 355 and 500 kHz reveals that the model
without mass transport is the more energetic one in bubble energy
balance, whereas this behavior is less intense for the lower and higher
ambient bubble radius (Fig. 6(e) and 6(j)). However, for an ultrasonic
frequency of 1000 kHz, the model without thermal conduction persists
to be dominant (Fig. 6(o)), which gives the highest maximal temper­
atures compared to the other models (the peak temperature = 11000
K). At the acoustic amplitude lower than 2.5 atm for the ultrasound
frequency of 355 kHz (and also 3 atm for 500 kHz), it is clear that the
mechanism of thermal conduction is the dominant (especially at the
peak temperature). However, for the acoustic amplitude greater than
2.5 atm (or equal 3 atm for 500 kHz), the model without mass transport
becomes dominant compared to the other ones. This is because at the
acoustic amplitude greater than 2.5 atm (f = 355 kHz) or equal to 3 atm
(f = 500 kHz), the expansion and compression ratios (around R0 of the
maximal response) of the model without mass transport are largely
greater than that of the model without thermal conduction. So that for
these acoustic amplitudes, the impact of the model without mass
transport is intensified more than the other models. It is concluded that
the effect of each of these mechanisms (mass transport, thermal con­
duction and reactions heat) is strongly dependent on the ultrasonic
parameters (acoustic amplitude and frequency) as well as the ambient
bubble radius.
12
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498
4. Conclusion
In this work, numerical simulations have been performed in the
purpose to assess the effects of mass transport, thermal conduction and
the reactions heat on a single bubble dynamics (argon bubble). These
effects were treated on a range of ambient bubble radii. The obtained
results show the existence of a region of ambient bubble radius (around
R0 of the maximal response) where the impact of all these energetic
mechanisms is maximum. This trend is observed for a wide range of
frequencies and acoustic amplitudes. This maximal response is shifted
toward the lower bubble radius as the acoustic amplitude is raised or if
the ultrasound frequency is increased. The effect of thermal conduction
mechanism is found to be dominant for the acoustic amplitudes lower
than 2.5 and 3 atm for the ultrasound frequencies of 355 kHz and 500
kHz, respectively. However, for acoustic amplitudes greater than 2 atm
(f = 355 kHz) or equal to 3 atm (f = 500 kHz), the mechanism of mass
transport becomes more promoted than the other mechanisms. The ef­
ficiency of the thermal conduction mechanism is due to the large
amount of energy carried out of bubble during the compression phase,
where this loose of energy is more favored if the temperature of the
external wall of bubble is considered constant. For the model without
mass transport, the increase of the maximum bubble temperature was
explained by the decrease of heat capacity of bubble and the very small
quantity of species created at the end of collapse (reduction of energy
consumption). On the other hand, for the model without reactions heat,
the increase of temperature originates from the endothermal nature of
the most chemical reactions taking place into the bubble. Finally, the
effect of each of these mechanisms (mass transport, thermal conduction
and reactions heat) is strongly dependent on the ultrasonic parameters
(acoustic amplitude and frequency) as well as the ambient bubble size.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Aissa Dehane: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Slimane
Merouani: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision,
Visualization, Writing - review & editing, Methodology, Formal analysis.
Oualid Hamdaoui: Conceptualization, Supervision, Visualization,
Validation, Writing - review & editing. Abdulaziz Alghyamah: Visu­
alization, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by The Ministry of Higher Education and
Scientific Research of Algeria (project No. A16N01UN250320180001)
and the General Directorate of Scientific Research and Technological
Development (GD-SRTD). The authors extend their appreciation to the
Deputyship for Research & Innovation, “Ministry of Education” in Saudi
Arabia for funding this research work through the project No. IFKSURG-
1441-501.
References
[1] N.S. Mohd-Yusof, B. Babgi, M. Aksu, J. Madhavan, M. Ashokkumar, Physical and
chemical effects of acoustic cavitation in selected ultrasonic cleaning applications,
Ultrason. Sonochem. 29 (2016) 568–576, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ultsonch.2015.06.013.
[2] B.M. Teo, F. Grieser, Applications of ultrasound to polymer synthesis, in: D. Chen,
S.K. Sharma, A. Mudhoo (Eds.), Handbook on Applications of Ultrasound
Sonochemistry for Sustainability, 2nd ed., CRC press, 2012, pp. 475–500.
A. Dehane et al.
[3] C. Pétrier, The use of power ultrasound for water treatment, in: JA Gallego-Juarez,
K. Graff (Eds.), Power Ultrason. Appl. High-Intensity Ultrasound, Elsevier, 2015:
pp. 939–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-028-6.00031-4.
[4] D. Chen, Applications of ultrasound in Water and Wastewater Treatment, in:
D. Chen, S.K. Sharma, A. Mudhoo (Eds.), Handbook on Applications of Ultrasound
Sonochemistry for Sustainability, 2nd ed., CRC press, 2012, pp. 373–405.
[5] K. Okitsu, M. Ashokkumar, F. Grieser, Sonochemical synthesis of gold
nanoparticles: effects of ultrasound frequency, J. Phys. Chem. B. 109 (2005)
20673–20675, https://doi.org/10.1021/jp0549374.
[6] J.H. Bang, K.S. Suslick, Applications of ultrasound to the synthesis of
nanostructured materials, Adv. Mater. 22 (2010) 1039–1059, https://doi.org/
10.1002/adma.200904093.
[7] D. Dalecki, Biological effects of microbubble-based ultrasound contrast agents,
Contrast Media Ultrason. (2005) 77–85.
[8] D. Dalecki, Mechanical bioeffects of ultrasound, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 6 (2004)
229–248, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.6.040803.140126.
[9] D. Dalecki, D.C. Hocking, Advancing ultrasound technologies for tissue
engineering, in: M. Ashokkumar (Ed.), Handbook of Ultrasononic and
Sonochemistry, Springer Science+Business Media, Singapore, 2015, pp. 1–26,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-470-2.
[10] F. Chemat, M.K. Zill-E-Huma, Khan, Applications of ultrasound in food technology:
processing, preservation and extraction, Ultrason. Sonochem. 18 (2011) 813–835,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2010.11.023.
[11] S. Kentish, H. Feng, Applications of power ultrasound in food processing, Annu.
Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 5 (2014) 263–284, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-
030212-182537.
[12] S.K. Bhangu, M. Ashokkumar, Theory of Sonochemistry, Top. Curr. Chem. 374
(2016), https://doi.org/10.1007/s41061-016-0054-y.
[13] T. Mason, J.P. Lorimer, Applied Sonochemistry: The Uses of Power Ultrasound in
Chemistry and Processing, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Gu,
2002.
[14] K.S. Suslick, D.J. Flannigan, Inside a collapsing bubble: sonoluminescence and the
conditions during cavitation, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 59 (2008) 659–683, https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.physchem.59.032607.093739.
[15] M. Ashokkumar, The characterization of acoustic cavitation bubbles – an overview,
Ultrason. Sonochem. 18 (2011) 864–872, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ultsonch.2010.11.016.
[16] K. Makino, M. Mossoba, P. Riesz, Chemical effects of ultrasound on aqueous
solutions. Formation of Evidence for OH an H by spein trapping, J. Am. Chem.
SOC. 104 (1982) 3537–3539, https://doi.org/10.1021/j100231a020.
[17] M.A. Margulis, Sonoluminescence and sonochemical reactions in cavitation fields.
A review, Ultrasonics 23 (1985) 157–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-624X
(85)90024-1.
[18] K. Yasui, T. Tuziuti, J. Lee, T. Kozuka, A. Towata, Y. Iida, The range of ambient
radius for an active bubble in sonoluminescence and sonochemical reactions,
J. Chem. Phys. 128 (2008), 184705, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2919119.
[19] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, Sonochemical treatment of textile wastewater, in: M.
P. Inamuddin, A. Asiri (Eds.), Water Pollutution and Remediation: Photocatalysis,
Springer-Nature, Switzerland, 2021 doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-54723-3_5.
[20] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, F. Saoudi, M. Chiha, Influence of experimental
parameters on sonochemistry dosimetries: KI oxidation, Fricke reaction and H2O2
production, J. Hazard. Mater. 178 (2010) 1007–1014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2010.02.039.
[21] P. Kanthale, M. Ashokkumar, F. Grieser, Sonoluminescence, sonochemistry (H2O2
yield) and bubble dynamics: Frequency and power effects, Ultrason. Sonochem. 15
(2008) 143–150, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2007.03.003.
[22] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, Y. Rezgui, M. Guemini, Sensitivity of free radicals
production in acoustically driven bubble to the ultrasonic frequency and nature of
dissolved gases, Ultrason. Sonochem. 22 (2014) 41–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ultsonch.2014.07.011.
[23] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, Z. Boutamine, Y. Rezgui, M. Guemini, Experimental
and numerical investigation of the effect of liquid temperature on the sonolytic
degradation of some organic dyes in water, Ultrason. Sonochem. 28 (2016)
382–392, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2015.08.015.
[24] Y. Kojima, S. Koda, H. Nomura, Effects of sample volume and frequency on
ultrasonic power in solutions on sonication, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 37 (1998)
2992–2995, https://doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.37.2992.
[25] Y. Asakura, T. Nishida, T. Matsuoka, S. Koda, Effects of ultrasonic frequency and
liquid height on sonochemical efficiency of large-scale sonochemical reactors,
Ultrason. Sonochem. 15 (2008) 244–250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ultsonch.2007.03.012.
[26] Y. Asakura, M. Maebayashi, T. Matsuoka, S. Koda, Characterization of
sonochemical reactors by chemical dosimetry, Electron. Commun. Japan, Part III
90 (2007) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecjc.20315.
[27] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, Y. Rezgui, M. Guemini, Computer simulation of
chemical reactions occurring in collapsing acoustical bubble: Dependence of free
radicals production on operational conditions, Res. Chem. Intermed. 41 (2015)
881–897, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11164-013-1240-y.
[28] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, Y. Rezgui, M. Guemini, Effects of ultrasound frequency
and acoustic amplitude on the size of sonochemically active bubbles-Theoretical
study, Ultrason. Sonochem. 20 (2013) 815–819, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ultsonch.2012.10.015.
[29] K. Yasui, T. Tuziuti, Y. Iida, Optimum bubble temperature for the sonochemical
production of oxidants, Ultrasonics 42 (2004) 579–584, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ultras.2003.12.005.
13
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498
[30] K. Yasui, T. Tuziuti, Y. Iida, H. Mitome, Theoretical study of the ambient-pressure
dependence of sonochemical reactions, J. Chem. Phys. 119 (2003) 346, https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.1576375.
[31] K. Yasui, T. Tuziuti, T. Kozuka, A. Towata, Y. Iida, Relationship between the bubble
temperature and main oxidant created inside an air bubble under ultrasound,
J. Chem. Phys. 127 (2007), 154502, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2790420.
[32] K. Yasui, Effect of liquid temperature on sonoluminescence, Phys. Rev. E 64
(2001), 016310, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016310.
[33] I. Hua, M.R. Hoffmann, Optimization of ultrasonic irradiation as an advanced
oxidation technology, Environ. Sci. Technol. 31 (1997) 2237–2243, https://doi.
org/10.1021/es960717f.
[34] M.A. Beckett, I. Hua, Impact of ultrasonic frequency on aqueous sonoluminescence
and sonochemistry, J. Phys. Chem. A 105 (2001) 3796–3802, https://doi.org/
10.1021/jp003226x.
[35] M.A. Beckett, I. Hua, Elucidation of the 1,4-dioxane decomposition pathway at
discrete ultrasonic frequencies, Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (2000) 3944–3953,
https://doi.org/10.1021/es000928r.
[36] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, F. Saoudi, M. Chiha, C. Pétrier, Influence of
bicarbonate and carbonate ions on sonochemical degradation of Rhodamine B in
aqueous phase, J. Hazard. Mater. 175 (2010) 593–599, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2009.10.046.
[37] O. Hamdaoui, S. Merouani, Ultrasonic destruction of acid Orange 7: Effect of humic
acid, surfactants and complex matrices, Water Environ. Res. 89 (2017) 250–259,
https://doi.org/10.2175/106143016X14798353399539.
[38] B.D. Storey, A.J. Szeri, M. Engineering, Water vapour, sonoluminescence and
sonochemistry, Proc. R. Soc. London A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 456 (2000)
1685–1709.
[39] D. Fuster, G. Hauke, C. Dopazo, Influence of the accommodation coefficient on
nonlinear bubble oscillations, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128 (2010) 5–10, https://doi.
org/10.1121/1.3436520.
[40] K. Kerboua, O. Hamdaoui, Influence of reactions heats on variation of radius,
temperature, pressure and chemical species amounts within a single acoustic
cavitation bubble, Ultrason. – Sonochem. 41 (2018) 449–457, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ultsonch.2017.10.001.
[41] K. Yasui, Chemical reactions in a sonoluminescing bubble, J. Phys. Soc. Japan. 66
(1997) 2911–2920, https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.66.2911.
[42] K. Yasui, Effects of thermal conduction on bubble dynamics near the
sonoluminescence threshold, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98 (1995) 2772–2782, https://
doi.org/10.1121/1.413242.
[43] Y. Shen, K. Yasui, T. Zhua, M. Ashokkumar, A model for the effect of bulk liquid
viscosity on cavitation bubble dynamics, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19 (2017)
20635–20640, https://doi.org/10.1039/C7CP03194G.
[44] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, Y. Rezgui, M. Guemini, Energy analysis during acoustic
bubble oscillations: Relationship between bubble energy and sonochemical
parameters, Ultrasonics. 54 (2014) 227–232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ultras.2013.04.014.
[45] F. Burdin, N.a. Tsochatzidis, P. Guiraud, a.M. Wilhelm, H. Delmas,
Characterisation of the acoustic cavitation cloud by two laser techniques, Ultrason.
Sonochem. 6 (1999) 43–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4177(98)00035-2.
[46] N. a. Tsochatzidis, P. Guiraud, a. M. Wilhelm, H. Delmas, Determination of
velocity, size and concentration of ultrasonic cavitation bubbles by the phase-
Doppler technique, Chem. Eng. Sci. 56 (2001) 1831–1840. doi: 10.1016/S0009-
2509(00)00460-7.
[47] B. Avvaru, A.B. Pandit, Oscillating bubble concentration and its size distribution
using acoustic emission spectra, Ultrason. Sonochem. 16 (2009) 105–115, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2008.07.003.
[48] Y. Iida, M. Ashokkumar, T. Tuziuti, T. Kozuka, K. Yasui, A. Towata, J. Lee, Bubble
population phenomena in sonochemical reactor: I Estimation of bubble size
distribution and its number density with pulsed sonication – laser diffraction
method, Ultrason. Sonochem. 17 (2010) 473–479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ultsonch.2009.08.018.
[49] S. Labouret, J. Frohly, Bubble size distribution estimation via void rate dissipation
in gas saturated liquid. Application to ultrasonic cavitation bubble field, Eur. Phys.
J. Appl. Phys. 19 (2002) 39–54, https://doi.org/10.1051/epjap:2002047.
[50] A. Brotchie, F. Grieser, M. Ashokkumar, Effect of power and frequency on bubble-
size distributions in acoustic cavitation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 1–4, https://
doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.084302.
[51] K. Yasui, T. Tuziuti, W. Kanematsu, Extreme conditions in a dissolving air
nanobubble, Phys. Rev. E. 94 (2016) 0131061_013106–13. doi: 10.1103/
PhysRevE.94.013106.
[52] J. Holzfuss, Unstable diffusion and chemical dissociation of a single
sonoluminescing bubble, Phys. Rev. E. 71 (2005) 026304-1_026304-5. doi:
10.1103/PhysRevE.71.026304.
[53] R. Toegel, D. Lohse, Phase diagrams for sonoluminescing bubbles: a comparison
between experiment and theory, J. Chem. Phys. 118 (2003) 1863–1875, https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.1531610.
[54] K. Yasui, A new formulation of bubble dynamics for sonoluminescence, PhD thesis,
Waseda University, 1996.
[55] K. Yasui, Alternative Model of Single Bubble Sonoluminescence, Phys. Rev. E 56
(1997) 6750–6760, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.054304.
[56] S. Merouani, H. Ferkous, O. Hamdaoui, Y. Rezgui, M. Guemini, New interpretation
of the effects of argon-saturating gas toward sonochemical reactions, Ultrason.
Sonochem. 23 (2015) 37–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2014.09.009.
[57] H.J. Curran, J.M. Simmie, W.J. Pitz, O. Marcus, C.K. Westbrook, A Comprehensive
Modeling Study of Hydrogen Oxidation, Int. J. Chem. kinet. 36 (2004) 603–622,
https://doi.org/10.1002/kin.20036.
A. Dehane et al.
[58] M.A. Mueller, T.J. Kim, R.A. Yetter, F.L. Dryer, Flow Reactor Studies and Kinetic
Modeling of the H2/O2 Reaction, Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 31 (1999) 113–125.
[59] R. Tögel, Reaction-Diffusion Kinetics of a Single Sonoluminescing Bubble,, PhD
Thesis, University of Twente, UK, 2002.
[60] R. Toegel, B. Gompf, R. Pecha, D. Lohse, Does water vapor prevent upscaling
sonoluminescence? Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 3165–3168, https://doi.org/
10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3165.
[61] S. Hilgenfeldt, S. Grossmann, D. Lohse, A simple explanation of light
emissioninsonoluminescence the light intensity and pulse width , as well as for the
spectral shape, Nature 398 (1999) 402–405.
[62] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, The size of active bubbles for the production of
hydrogen in sonochemical reaction field, Ultrason. – Sonochem. 32 (2016)
320–327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.03.026.
14
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 73 (2021) 105498
[63] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, Y. Rezgui, M. Guemini, Computational engineering
study of hydrogen production via ultrasonic cavitation in water, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 41 (2016) 832–844, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.11.058.
[64] H. Ferkous, S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, Y. Rezgui, M. Guemini, Comprehensive
experimental and numerical investigations of the effect of frequency and acoustic
intensity on the sonolytic degradation of naphthol blue black in water, Ultrason.
Sonochem. 26 (2015) 30–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2015.02.004.
[65] S. Merouani, O. Hamdaoui, Y. Rezgui, M. Guemini, Mechanism of the
sonochemical production of hydrogen, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 40 (2015)
4056–4064, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.01.150.