i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

A complete analysis of the effects of transfer

phenomenons and reaction heats on sono-
hydrogen production from reacting bubbles: Impact
of ambient bubble size

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 e 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

highlights

Effects of reactions heat and mass and heat transfer on H2 sono-production are studied.

The three energetic parameters are investigated for a range of ambient bubble radii (R0).

The effect the three energetic mechanisms on H2 sono-generation depend on R0 and frequency.

The ignorance of thermal conduction and reactions heat improve the H2 sono-generation.

Excluding mass transport of water vapor lowers the H2 sono-generation.

article info abstract

Article history: Several experimental and computational works have been focused on the production of
Received 16 January 2021 hydrogen by using ultrasonic irradiation. However, the effects of the different ultrasonic
Received in revised form conditions have been analyzed by considering a single value for the ambient bubble radius
27 February 2021 R0 (mean value), which is not the true case as the size of active bubbles in sonicating
Accepted 8 March 2021 medium is an interval rather than a sole value. In the present paper, the impacts of mass
Available online 12 April 2021 transport, heat exchange and chemical reactions heat on the sono-production of hydrogen
are examined over a range of ambient bubble radii. These effects are shown for various
Keywords: ultrasonic frequencies of 355, 500 and 1000 kHz and under a range of acoustic amplitudes,
Sono-hydrogen from 1.5 to 3 atm. The numerical simulations results demonstrated that the increase of the
Bubble size production rate of hydrogen (around R0 of the maximal production rate) is amortized (for
Water evaporation condensation all models) for the wave frequencies of 355 and 500 kHz at higher amplitude (i.e. 3 atm). On
Heat conduction the other hand, the total production rate (around R0 of the maximal response) is increased
Reactions heat proportionally with the reduction of ultrasonic frequency or if the acoustic amplitude is
Numerical analysis increased. The effect of heat exchange mechanism (on H2 and the total production rate)
was found to be dominant whatever the acoustic amplitude or the wave frequency (on all

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s.merouani@yahoo.fr, s.merouani03@gmail.com (S. Merouani), ohamdaoui@ksu.edu.sa (O. Hamdaoui).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.069
0360-3199/© 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
18768 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9

the range of R0). It has been demonstrated that at the acoustic amplitudes >1.5 atm (for
f ¼ 355 and 500 kHz) and >2 atm (for f ¼ 1000 kHz), the impacts of chemical reactions heat
and mass transport are clear compared to the normal model throughout a range of bubble
sizes. The ambient bubble size (R0) of the maximal response (maximal production rate) is
shifted toward lower values when the ultrasound frequency or the acoustic amplitude is
raised. In addition, it is observed that the increase in the wave frequency or the decrease in
acoustic amplitude cause a narrowing in the range of active bubbles.
© 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

improvement potential compared to each isolated technique

Introduction
It is estimated that the global distribution of energy use is 80%
fossil fuels, 14% renewable energy and 6% nuclear power [1].
However, due to the major problems confronted in our days,
which are the climate change and the fossil fuel depletion [2],
a great number of theoretical and experimental researches is
consecrated to either the creation of new and sustainable
sources of energy or the improvement of the existing ones.
Hydrogen is considered as one of the important energy carrier
for the future [3], due to its interesting advantages [e.g. highest
energy content compared to any known fuel (methane, gas-
oline, diesel, ethanol and methanol)], where the HHV (higher
heating value) and LHV (lower heating value) are 141.9 kJ g1
and 119.9 kJ g1, respectively [4], different forms of storage
(e.g. gaseous, liquid, or in together with metal hybrid), abun-
dance, a clean fuel with no CO2 emissions and can be used in
fuel cells for generation of electricity [5e7]. Therefore,
hydrogen is one of the most effective solutions to reduce
greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and oil dependence [8].
However, unlike fossil fuels, hydrogen is not readily available
in nature, and must therefore be produced [2]. In nature, we
find hydrogen in a combination with other elements, pri-
marily with oxygen in water and with carbon, nitrogen and
oxygen in living materials and fossil fuels [9].
Now, hydrogen is mainly used as a chemical substance
(petroleum refining, petrochemical industries for ammonia
and methanol synthesis) rather than a fuel [10]. In general,
several processes are available for hydrogen production such
as pyrolysis and reforming (steam reforming, partial oxidation
and autothermal steam reforming) of hydrocarbons and coal
gasification [3,4,10,11]. About 95% of the hydrogen produced
comes from fossil fuels conversion [12], where most of H2 is
produced by steam reforming of natural gas [10,13]. Due to the
environmental damage and finite life of fossil fuels, alterna-
tive methods are adopted for hydrogen production such as
water electrolysis [2,14], bio-production from sludge and dairy
wastewater [15,16], bio-photolysis of water by algae [17], dark-
fermentation hydrogen production, photo-fermentation [17],
sequential dark and photo-fermentation [17], thermolysis [2]
and photo-electrolysis of water [2,10], gasification [4] and py-
rolysis of biomass [2,4]. Recently, sonolysis of water have been
successfully used for producing hydrogen [18,19]. Moreover,
ultrasonication assisted hydrogen production from catalysis
[20e22], photocatalysis [20e22], digestion sludge [16,23] and
anaerobic fermentation of wastewater [24] have proven their
(without ultrasound). An interesting review on hydrogen
generation by sonolysis is recently published by Merouani and
Hamdaoui in a book chapter [18].
Water sonication in the presence of dissolved gases gen-
erates acoustic cavitatione the formation, growth and violent
collapse of millions of bubbles [25]. Temperature of about
5000 K and pressure of the order of 500 atm, accompanied with
chemical reactions and sonoluminescence have been shown
to be engendered inside the bubble at the end of the strong
bubbles collapse [26e28]. Reactive free radicals and species
(i.e.,COH, H, HOC 2 and H2O2) as well as molecular hydrogen
(H2) arise from the pyrolytic reaction of water vapor and gases
inside the bubble [29e33]. Experimental measurements
showed that the production rate of H2 is 1.25 fold higher than
that of H2O2 [18].
On the other hand, the subject of hydrogen production by
sonolysis (the sono-hydrogen) was widely treated theoreti-
cally in order to increase the process efficiency. Besides,
different models for a single bubble oscillation were adopted;
someone's ignore transfer phenomenon (i.e., mass and heat
transfer) [32,34e36], other ones include them and ignore the
heat generated by the chemical reaction inside the bubble
[37e40], while a very limited models include all these ener-
getic mechanisms in the bubble energy balance [29,41e44].
Merouani et al. [35], studied the mechanism of H2 sono-
generation, where the gaseous production (inside the bub-
ble) of hydrogen was evidenced compared to its yield in the
liquid phase, where the principal reaction responsible of H2
yield is COH þ HC / H2þO [35]. In addition, the effects of
different parameters were analyzed such as the acoustic
amplitude [32], ultrasonic frequency [32], wave form [45],
liquid temperature [32], saturation gas [32], alcohol existence
[46]. Nevertheless, it is observed in all these theoretical works
that the size of the ambient bubble radius was fixed at a mean
value depending on the ultrasonic conditions of irradiation
(i.e., frequency and amplitude). However, the size of active
bubbles in sono-cavitating medium is an interval rather than a
single value, as demonstrated experimentally and theoreti-
cally [47e52]. Therefore, it is expected that each bubble will be
affected differently compared to the other ones. Besides, the
type of the adopted model may significantly affect the effect of
the initial bubble size on the sono-production rate of hydrogen
[53].
To the best of our knowledge, the impact of initial bubble
sizes with relation to the effect of mass transport, heat
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9 18769

exchange and chemical reactions heat on hydrogen sono- The mass flux m of evaporation and condensation at the
production is until now not investigated. Consequently, interface is expressed using Hertz-Knudsen formula derived
the present theoretical work investigates the impacts of from kinetic theory of gases [56]:
theses energetic mechanisms on range of ambient bubble
h i
sizes, for a wide range of frequency (355e1000 kHz) and rsat
g;H2 O  rg;H2 O ðRÞ


acoustic amplitude (1e3 atm). The numerical simulations m ¼ aCðTs Þ (5)
4
conducted in this paper are based on a model of a single
bubble oscillating in water under an argon atmosphere. sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
8Ts Rg
CðTs Þ ¼ (6)
pMH2 O

Model where a is the evaporation coefficient (considered constant

a ¼ 0.4), CðTs Þ is the average velocity of molecules, rg,H2O (R) is
The employed model is based on a set of ordinary differential the density of water vapor in the bubble, and
equations, where the effects of non-equilibrium evaporation 3
g;H2 O ¼ 0.0173 kg m
rsat is the saturated vapor density. The
and condensation of water vapor at the bubble wall, thermal temperature of the external bubble surface is Ts ¼ Tliq.
conduction both inside and outside a bubble and chemical Heat exchange inside and outside the bubble is estimated
reactions are included. All numerical simulations have been to be [57]:
conducted for a bubble oscillating in an argon-saturated
 
water. Based on the above assumptions, temperature, pres-
Tliq  T
Q ¼ 4pR2 lmix (7)
sure, bubble radius evolution and bubble wall velocity can be Lth
determined at any instant. The radial dynamics of the bubble
( sffiffiffiffiffiffi )
is described by the modified Keller-Miksis equation (Eq. (1)), R Rc
developed by Yasui [54]: Lth ¼ min ;
(8)
p R


!

!
R m

3
2 R 2m lmix, c and Lth are the heat conductivity, thermal diffusivity
1 þ RR þ R 1  þ
C CrL 2 3C 3CrL of the gas mixture and the thickness of the thermal boundary
!

     layer, respectively.
1 R R
¼ 1þ PB ðtÞ  PA sin 2pf t þ  P∞ (1) The thermal conductivity (lmix) is estimated by [58]:
rL C C
   




!



! nH2 O nAr
mR R m m
m Rm R dPB lmix ¼ lH2 O ðTÞ þ lAr ðTÞ (9)
þ 1 þ þ Rþ þ þ nt nt
rL C CrL rL 2rL 2CrL CrL dt
where lH2O(T) and lAr(T) are the thermal conductivity of water
where dots denotes the time derivative (d/dt), R is the radius of vapor and argon at temperature T (in K), respectively. The
the bubble, C the speed of sound in the liquid, rL is the density thermal conductivity (in W m1 K1) of H2O and Ar are esti-


of the liquid, m is the net rate of evaporation per unit area and mated by [55]:
unit time and P∞ is the ambient static pressure. PA is corre-
lated with the acoustic intensity Ia (or power per unit area) as: lH20 ðTÞ ¼ 9:967213  105 T  1:1705  102 (10)
PA ¼ (2IarLC)1/2. The liquid pressure PB(t) on the external side of
the bubble wall is related to the internal pressure P(t) by the lAR ðTÞ ¼ 3:5887  105 T þ 6:81277  103 (11)
following equation [54]:
At the bubble wall, the thermal diffusivity (c) is estimated

   by [57]:
2s 4m
m
2 1 1
PB ðtÞ ¼ PðtÞ   Rþ m  (2)
R R rL rL rg lmix
c¼ (12)
Cp
where s is the surface tension, m is the liquid viscosity and rg is
the density inside the bubble. The internal pressure P(t) is where Cp is the heat capacity concentration (J m3 K1) for H2O
calculated using van der Waals equation (Eq. (3)): and Ar mixture [57]:

nRg T an2 X fi þ 2
PðtÞ ¼ þ 2 (3) Cp ¼ kB Ci NA (13)
ðV  nbÞ V 2

where a and b are the Van de Waals constants, Rg is the uni- Ci, kB, NA and fi are the molar concentration of species i (H2O
versal gas constant, V is the volume of the bubble [V¼4/3(pR3)], and Ar) inside the bubble, Boltzmann constant, Avogadro
and T is the temperature inside the bubble. The Van der Waals number and the number of degrees of freedom of species i
constants (a and b) are determined by [55]: (fH2O ¼ 6 and fAr ¼ 3), respectively.
    The temperature (T) inside bubble is calculated by solving
8 nH2 O nAr
> the following equation [54]:
< a ¼ aH2 O nt
> þ aAr
nt
    (4) ZT ZT
>
> n n an2
: b ¼ bH O H2 O þ bAr Ar
2
nt nt E ¼ nH2 O Cv;H2 O ðTÞdT þ nAr Cv;Ar ðTÞdT  (14)
V
0 0
18770 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9

where E is the internal energy of the bubble and CV,H2O(T) in which yki is the stoichiometric coefficient of the ith reaction
(Cv,Ar(T)) is the isochoric heat capacity of vapor (Argon) at and Xk is the chemical symbol for the kth species. The su-
temperature T, given as a polynomial approximation (ex- perscript ‘ indicates forward stoichiometric coefficients, while
pressions are available in Ref. [59]). “ indicates reverse stoichiometric coefficients. The production


The change of the internal energy of a bubble (DE) in time
rate Uk of the kth species can be written as a summation of the
(Dt), due to the pressure work, heat of chemical reactions
rate of the variables for all reactions involving the kth species:
within the bubble, energy carried by water molecules by
! !
evaporation and condensation and heat exchange by diffu-
1 dnk X
I
 00 0
sion at the interface, is expressed by [54,60]: Uk ¼ y  yki ri k ¼ 1;&; K (17)
V dt i¼1 ki
 
Dt
Tliq  T Where nk is the number of moles of the kth species. The rate ri
DE ¼  PðtÞ:DVðtÞ þ 4pR2 mCv;H2O þ 4pR2 Dtl
MH2 O Lth for the ith reaction is given as:
4 X25
 pR3 Dt i¼1 DHi ri (15) Y
K Y
K
3 0 00
ri ¼ kfi ½Xk yki  kri ½Xk yki (18)
where DHi and ri are the enthalpy change and the rate of the k¼1 k¼1

ith reaction, respectively, the first term in the right-hand side where [Xk] is the molar concentration of the kth species and kfi
of Eq. (15) is the PV work. The second term is the energy car- and kri are the forward and reverse rate constants of the ith
ried by evaporating vapor from the surrounding liquid into the reaction, respectively. The forward and reverse rate constants
bubble and by condensing vapor from the bubble into the for the ith reactions are assumed to have the following
liquid in Dt. The third term is the energy change due to the Arrhenius temperature dependence:
thermal conduction. The last term is the heat of chemical
 
reactions taking place inside the bubble during the collapse. Eafi
kfi ¼ Afi Tbfi exp  (19)
In this work, a scheme of 25 reversible chemical reactions Rg T
is considered (Table 1), in which K chemical species is
 
involved. The general form of these reversible reactions is Ea
kri ¼ Ari Tbri exp  ri (20)
given as follows: Rg T

X
K X
K where Rg is the universal gas constant, Afi (Ari) is the pre-
00
y0ki Xk 4 yki Xk (16) exponential factor, bfi (bri) is the temperature exponent and
k¼1 k¼1

Table 1 e Scheme of the possible chemical reactions inside a collapsing argon bubble [35,73]. 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 DH 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 DH
C C 23 5 22
1 H2O þ M # H þ OH þ M 1.912  10 1.83 1.185  10 2.2  10 2.0 0.0 121.72


2 OH þ M # O þ HCþM 9.88  1017 0.74 1.021  105 4.714  1018 1.0 0.0 104.36
3 O þ O þ M # O2þM 6.165  1015 0.5 0.0 4.515  1017 0.64 1.189  105 120.91
4 HCþO2 # OþCOH 1.915  1014 0.0 1.644  104 5.481  1011 0.39 2.93  102 16.54
5 HCþO2 þM # HOC 2 þM 1.475  1012 0.6 0.0 3.09  1012 0.53 4.887  104 - 49,0
6 O þ H2O # COHþCOH 2.97  106 2.02 1.34  104 1.465  105 2.11 2.904  103 17.37
7 HOC

2 þH # H2þO2 1.66  1013 0.0 8.23  102 3.164  1012 0.35 5.551  104 - 57.34
8 HOC2 þH
C
# COHþCOH 7.079  1013 0.0 2.95  102 2.027  1010 0.72 3.684  104 - 38.82
9 HO2 þO # COH þ O2
C
3.25  1013 0.0 0.0 3.252  1012 0.33 5.328  104 - 55.47
10 HOC C
2 þ OH # H2O þ O2 2.89  1013 0.0 4.97  102 5.861  1013 0.24 6.908  104 - 72.83
11 H2þM # H
þH
þM 4.577  1019 1.4 1.044  105 1.146  1020 1.68 8.2  102 106.33
12 O þ H2 # HCþCOH 3.82  1012 0.0 7.948  103 2.667  104 2.65 4.88  103 1.97
C
13 OH þ H2 # HCþH2O 2.16  108 1.52 3.45  103 2.298  109 1.40 1.832  104 - 15.4
14 H2O2þO2 # HO22þHOC 2 4.634  1016 0.35 5.067  104 4.2  1014 0.0 1.198  104 41.95
15 H2O2þM # COHþCOH þ M 2.951  1014 0.0 4.843  104 1.0  1014 0.37 0.0 52.13
16 H2O2þHC # H2OþCOH 2.410  1013 0.0 3.97  103 1.269  108 1.31 7.141  104 - 69.6
17 H2O2þHC # H2þHOC 2 6.025  1013 0.0 7.95  103 1.041  1011 0.70 2.395  104 - 15.38
18 H2O2þO # COH þ HOC 2 9.550  106 2.0 3.97  103 8.66  103 2.68 1.856  104 - 13.42
19 H2O2þCOH # H2O þ HOC 2 1.0  1012 0.0 0.0 1.838  1010 0.59 3.089  104 - 30.78
20 O3þM # O2þO þ M 2.48  1020 0 2.27  104 e e e 26.14
21 O3þO # O2þO2 5.2  1018 0 4.157  103 e e e - 94.77
22 O3þ
OH # O2þ HO
2 7.8  1017 0 1.9  103 e e e - 39.46
23 O3þ HOC C
2 # O2þO2þ OH 1  1017 0 2.8  103 e e e - 29.17
24 HCþ O3 # HOC 2 þO 9  1018 0.5 3.99  103 e e e 32.45
25 HCþ O3 # COH þ O2 1.6  1019 0 0 e e e - 23.01
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9 18771

Efi (Eri) is the activation energy. Arrhenius parameters of each

3. Model without mass transfer (i.e. denoted as m ¼ 0),
chemical reaction are presented in Table 1. 4. Model without reactions heats (i.e. denoted as DH ¼ 0).
The water vapor change with time inside the bubble, due to
the evaporation and condensation at the bubble wall and due
to chemical reactions is given by: Total production rates


m

nH2 O ðt þ DtÞ ¼ nH2 O ðtÞ þ 4pR2 Dt þ VDtUH2 O (21) Fig. 1 shows the effect of frequency (355, 500 and 1000 kHz)
MH2O
and acoustic amplitude (1.5e3 atm) on the total production
For other species k (except Ar): rate of all species created inside the bubble at the end of the
bubble collapse, i.e. COH, HC, O, HOC 2 , H2, O2 and H2O2, for the


nk ðt þ DtÞ ¼ nk ðtÞ þ VDtUk (22) four treated scenarios: normal model, model without heat
transfer, model without mass transfer and model without
The modified Keller-Miksis equation (Eq. (1)), is a nonlinear
reactions heat. The calculations are given for ambient bubble
second-order differential equation, which can be reduced to a
radii that provide the maximum response (production rate),
system of two differential first-order equations as
which are given in the following section (Production rate of
dR
hydrogen). The total production rate is the total amount of
¼R (23)
dt the created species inside the bubble at the end of the first
bubble collapse multiplied by the corresponding driving fre-
8
!    



! 9
1 R R mR R m quency [30,34,42]. The selected range of ultrasound frequency
>
> PB ðtÞPA sin 2pf tþ P∞ þ 1 þ þ>
>
>
> 1þ >
> (355, 500 and 1000 kHz) is based on many experimental works,
< rL C C rL C CrL =
which found that the best frequency for sonochemistry is
>

!

! >
>
>



m
m Rm R dPB 3
2 >
>
>
: R 2m >
; ranged from 300 to 1000 kHz [61e70]. These work confirmed

Rþ þ þ R 1 þ
dR rL 2rL 2CrL CrL dt 2 3C 3CrL that lower frequencies (i.e., usually 20 kHz) is not suitable for
¼ !
dt

producing efficient sonochemical effects in aqueous solution.
1 CR þ CrmL R However, some numerical simulation of hydrogen production
at lower frequencies (for single bubble scale) has already been
(24)
given in our previous work [32]. The acoustic intensity In
Equations (14), (23) and (24) are solved using finite differ- corresponding to the three used acoustic amplitudes, PA ¼ 1.5,
ence method. The outputs of these equations are the bubble 2 and 3 atm, are respectively, 0.781, 1.4 and 3.13 W/cm2, as
wall velocity, evolution of the bubble radius, variation of calculated from the equation relying PA with In (i.e., PA ¼
bubble temperature and pressure all along the bubble oscil- (2IarLC)1/2, which is given in section Model, just after Eq. (1)).
lation, respectively. The variation in time of number of moles The acoustic energies (i.e., In  S) required for delivering theses
of each species housed within the bubble is given by Equations intensives depends on the area “S” of the irradiating trans-
(21) and (22). The amount of argon remains unchanged during ducer. For example, if the diameter of the transducer is equal
the bubble oscillation (i.e. chemically inert). to 5 cm, the acoustic energies could be then 15.3, 27.5 and
61.4 W, for PA ¼ 1.5, 2 and 3 atm, respectively.
The total production rates increase when the acoustic
Results and discussion amplitude is raised or if the ultrasound frequency is lowered.
For example, the total maximal production rate reached by
It should be noted here that only the case of a single bubble the model without reactions heat at an acoustic amplitude of
cavitation is taken into account, where the different in- 1.5 atm is 1.59  1011 mol s1 under the ultrasonic frequency
teractions between bubbles in the sonicated liquid are of 355 kHz. This yield goes up to 7.6  1011 mol s1 for PA-
ignored. Additionally, all simulations were conducted for ¼ 2 atm, and increases up to 3  1010 mol s1 under PA-
argon-saturated water at 20  C. Therfore, the initial bubble ¼ 3 atm, for the same frequency. On the other hand, the
content is a mixture of water vapor and argon. The complete maximal rates of production are obtained when the model
bubble-dynamics model includes the liquid compressibility without thermal conduction is used (Fig. 1), this confirms the
and viscosity, heat transfer (i.e. thermal conduction through importance of the heat transfer into the bubble internal en-
bubble wall), mass transfer (i.e. nonequilibrium condensation ergy balance. The production rates obtained through the
and evaporation of the liquid vapor across the bubble/liquid model without reactions heat persist to be greater than those
interface), reaction kinetics occurring inside the bubble (i.e. retrieved for the normal model (Fig. 1). However, the model
reactions heats are incorporated). In the purpose to evaluate without mass transport gives the lowest production rates
the effects of different parameters injected into the energy even after raising the acoustic amplitude from 2 atm to 3 atm
equation of a single bubble, we will assess in the next sections (Fig. 1), where the maximal temperatures retrieved for this
the result of elimination of each of these parameters on H2 model (without mass transport) can exceed those given by the
production. The investigated cases are: other models. This is due to the elimination of the nonequi-
librium evaporation and condensation for this model. It
1. Complete model with including all parameters (i.e. deno- should be noted that the increase of all the total production
ted as normal), rates (for all models with the exception of the model without


2. Model without heat transfer (i.e. denoted as Q ¼ 0), mass transport) is proportional to the maximal temperatures
18772 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9
Fig. 1 e The total production rates of all species inside the bubble, excepting argon, as function of the acoustic amplitudes
(1.5, 2 and 3 atm) and the ultrasound frequencies (355, 500 and 1000 kHz) for the different models. The vertical axis is in
logarithmic scale. Calulations are made for R0's of the maximum responses, corresponding to the maximum production
rates.
reached at the end of collapse (the temperature profiles will be
given in the following sections).
Production rate of hydrogen
In Fig. 2(a)-(i), the production rate of hydrogen is calculated on
a range of ambient bubble sizes for various frequencies (355,
500 and 1000 kHz) and different acoustic amplitudes (from 1.5
to 3 atm). Data of Fig. 2(a)e(i) are given for the different
investigated models (i.e. complete model, model without heat
condition, model without mass transfer and model ignoring
reactions heat). The production rate of hydrogen is defined as
the amount of H2 created inside the bubble at the end of the
first bubble collapse multiplied by the driving frequency
[30,42].
According to Fig. 2(a)e(i), the rate of hydrogen production is
increased with the decrease of the ultrasound frequency or if
the acoustic power is increased. However, from a certain
acoustical conditions and depending on the eliminated ener-
getic mechanism this increase is amortized. On the other
hand, it is clear that for all the used frequencies (355, 500 and
1000 kHz), the maximal response (maximal production rate) is
shifted toward smaller ambient bubble radii when the
acoustic amplitude is increased or if the ultrasound frequency
is raised. This is because when the ultrasonic frequency is
increased, bubbles are found to be enable to largely expand so
that the maximal response is automatically shifted toward
smaller bubble radii [34,42]. Conversely to the case when the
ultrasonic frequency is reduced, bubbles will get more time to
expand, therefore expansion and compression ratios are
higher in this case, and the maximal response is moved to-
ward larger bubble radii. On the other hand, when the ultra-
sonic frequency is fixed, the increase of the acoustic
amplitude shows a negative influence on the larger ambient
bubble radii, causing the shifting of the maximal response
(maximal production rate) toward lower values of ambient
bubble sizes. This is due to the fact that when the acoustic
power is raised, the water vapor entering the bubble during
the rarefaction phase will be huge, which means obviously a
soft collapse. These behaviors are observed for all the used
frequencies. The same trend is found experimentally by
Brotchie et al. [52] and theoretically by Yasui et al. [42] for
sonoluminescing and sonochemically active bubbles. In
addition, it is observed that the wave frequency rise or the
acoustic amplitude decrease cause the range of active bubbles
to be narrowed.
For PA ¼ 1.5 atm, Fig. 2(a)e(c), the energetic weightiness of
the model without thermal conduction is quite obvious for all
the ultrasonic frequencies. The maximal production rates
retrieved for this model at the optimum bubble radii are
1.5  1014 mol s1 for 355 kHz (R0 ¼ 3 mm), 6.2  1018 mol s1
for 500 kHz (R0 ¼ 2.5 mm) and 1.13  1026 mol s1 for 1000 kHz
(R0 ¼ 2 mm). In spite of the elimination of non-equilibrium
evaporation and condensation for the model without mass
transport, the maximal production rate of H2 in this case is
found to be greater than those found by using either the model
without reactions heat or the normal model (Fig. 2(a)e(c)). The
maximal production rates of H2 for the model without mass
transport at the ultrasound frequencies of 355 kHz (R0 ¼ 3 mm),
500 kHz (R0 ¼ 2.5 mm) and 1000 kHz (R0 ¼ 2 mm) are
1.27  1014 mol s1, 2.88  1018 and 2.45  1029 mol s1,
respectively. For the model without reactions heat or the
normal model under the ultrasound frequencies of 500 and
100 kHz (PA ¼ 1.5 atm), the maximal production rates of H2 are
the same, with the exception of the ultrasound frequency of
355 kHz, where the effect of the eliminated reactions heat
promotes more the increase of the internal energy of bubble
compared to the normal model. This is due to the fact that for
the normal model the endothermic reactions involved into the
kinetic mechanism (Table 1) participate to reduce largely the
temperature increase inside the bubble during the collapse, as
it is found by many researchers [29,59,71]. It should be noted
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9
Fig. 2 e Production rate of H2 as a function of ambient bubble radius (R0) under varoius frequencies and acoustic amplitude,
for models without mass transfer, without heat transfer, without reactions heat and complete model (normal).
here that the superior rate of H2 production obtained by the
model without mass transport (for all frequencies) compared
to either the model without reactions heat or the normal
model is due to (i) the weak acoustic power applied for all the
models (PA ¼ 1.5 atm), so that the increase of temperature in
this case is insufficient to reveal the effect of the reactions
heat elimination or the consideration of all the energetic
mechanisms (normal model) and (ii) the elimination of water
condensation during the compression phase for the model
without mass transfer. The average temperatures obtained at
the maximal response (PA ¼ 1.5 atm) for each of the used
frequencies are around 3500, 2500 and 1300 K for 355, 500 and
1000 kHz, respectively (Fig. 3(a)-(c)).
For PA ¼ 2 atm, Fig. 2(d)e(f), the important impact of the
thermal conduction mechanism within the bubble internal
energy balance persist to be dominant, where the maximal
production rates of H2 found under 355 kHz (R0,opt ¼ 2.1 mm),
500 kHz (R0,opt ¼ 1.7 mm) and 1000 kHz (R0,opt ¼ 1.5 mm) are
5  1011, 1.28  1011 and 4.92  1017 mol s1, respectively.
The adoption of the thermal model used by T€ogel [72] imply
that the increase of the bubble temperature will be significant
compared to the normal model, where the lost energy is
important because of the constant temperature considered on
the external bubble wall. At the opposite, in this case (PA-
¼ 2 atm), the differences between the maximal temperatures
(for the all the adopted models at around R0 of maximal
response) reached for each of the used frequencies are clear as
18773
it is shown in Fig. 3(a)e(c) (i.e. case of PA ¼ 1.5 atm). On the
other hand, for the ultrasound frequencies of 355 Hz and
500 kHz (PA ¼ 2 atm), a lower increase is registered for the
maximal H2 yield for the model without mass transport
compared to that found by using the model without reactions
heat or the normal model. However, for the ultrasonic fre-
quency of 1000 kHz (Fig. 2(f)), the maximal production rate
retrieved for the model without mass transport is greater than
that of the model without reactions heat or the normal model.
This is obviously explained as in the previous paragraph,
especially where the average of the maximal temperatures
attained for all the used models in this case (PA ¼ 2 atm,
f ¼ 1000 kHz) is around ~ 3000 K. As it is expected, the increase
of the acoustic power promotes more the effect of the re-
actions heat elimination compared to the case of the normal
model. This is translated by the increase of the maximal H2
production rate for the model without reactions heat
(3.6  1011 mol s1 for PA ¼ 2 atm and 4.26  1015 mol s1 for
PA ¼ 1.5 atm) in comparison to the normal model
(3  1011 mol s1 for PA ¼ 2 atm and 2.5  1015 mol s1 for
PA ¼ 1.5 atm) for the frequency of 355 kHz (Fig. 2(a) and (d)).
By increasing the acoustic amplitude to 3 atm under the
ultrasound frequency of 1000 kHz (Fig. 2(i)), the maximal
production rate (at R0 ¼ 1.3 mm) of H2 (for all models) is raised
to an appreciable amount compared to its value for the case
when the acoustic amplitude is 2 atm for the same wave fre-
quency. This is logically interpreted by the maximal
18774 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9
Fig. 3 e The maximal temperatures attained at R0 of the
maximal response for the different models as a function of
the acoustic amplitude (1.5, 2 and 3 atm) and the
ultrasound frequency (355, 500 and 1000 kHz).
temperatures retrieved for each of the used models (Fig. 3(c)).
The picks temperatures developed inside the bubble at
collapse for PA ¼ 3 atm and f ¼ 1000 kHz using the model
without thermal conduction, mass transport, reactions heat
and the normal model are 11,080 K, 9030 K, 8340 K and
71,340 K, respectively (Fig. 3(c)). It should be noted that in spite
of the maximal temperature attained using the model without
mass transport (9030 K) at this acoustic amplitude and fre-
quency (3 atm, 1000 kHz), the maximal production rate of H2
retrieved for this model is the lowest one compared to the rest
models, which is explained especially by the ignored water
molecules evaporation during the expansion phase. On the
other hand, for the ultrasound frequencies of 355 kHz and
500 kHz (Fig. 2(g) and (h)), it seems that the maximal increase
of the hydrogen production rate is amortized compared to the
case of 1000 kHz under always the same acoustic amplitude of
3 atm (Fig. 2(d)e(i)). For example, for the model without ther-
mal conduction, the maximal ratio of increase of H2 produc-
tion rate is 1.42 passing from an acoustic amplitude of
2 atme3 atm under the ultrasound frequency of 355 kHz
(Fig. 2(d) and (g)). This maximal ratio decreases to 1.25 for the
ultrasonic frequency of 500 kHz (Fig. 2(e) and (h)). This in-
dicates the existence of a plateau for the maximal production
of hydrogen with respect to PA. To explain this, we should take
into account the kinetic constants of the main reactions tak-
ing place into the bubble during collapse and the temperature
profiles evolving inside bubble. According to Fig. 3(a) and (b)
and , we observe that at PA ¼ 3 atm for the ultrasonic fre-
quencies of 355 kHz and 500 kHz, the picks temperatures of all
models are around or greater than 10,000 K, especially for the
model without thermal conduction or the model without
mass transport. This increase of temperature is owing to the
raise of acoustic intensity, where the acceleration of bubble
wall during the collapse phase generates a violent collapse at
the end of compression period. Consequently, the general
production of bubble is improved. The increase of bubble
temperature is a frequency and mechanism (mass, heat and
chemical reaction) dependent. This huge temperatures
developed within bubbles, promotes the thermal dissociation
of water molecules as well as COH radicals as seen in Fig. 4(a)
and (b) (1st and 2nd reactions of Table 1). Consequently,
important amounts of COH, O and HC radicals are formed.
However, the formation of O2 molecules seems to be clearly
lowered because of the higher backward reaction constant at
around or greater than 10,000 K (Fig. 4(c)). On the other hand,
Fig. 4(d) indicates the increase of O radicals consumption
especially due to the water molecules found inside bubbles
and the relatively higher forward constant. According to the
11th reaction (Table 1 and Fig. 4(e)), the consumption of H2
goes up rapidly especially for higher temperatures (around
and greater 10,000 K), this is clearly shown by the forward and
backward constants. At the opposite, the hydrogen con-
sumption is reduced as it is shown in Fig. 4(f) according to the
12th reaction of Table 1, where the backward constant is
relatively greater than the forward constant, and also due to
the large HC and COH radicals created within the bubble. It
should be noted here that according to the theoretical study of
Merouani et al. [35], it has been shown that the 12th reaction is
the main reaction responsible of the hydrogen production
inside the bubble (gas phase). Taking into account the 11th
and 12th reactions of Table 1 and Fig. 4(e) and (f), we can
conclude that at higher temperatures (around and greater
than 10,000 K, Fig. 3(a)e(c)), the consumption of H2 is slightly
promoted (for all the used models), this explain the existence
of a plateau for the hydrogen production rate [Fig. 2(d) and (e),
Fig. 2(g) and 2(h)]. Some exception is indicated at the acoustic
amplitude of 3 atm (Fig. 2(g)) for the model without mass
transport, where the maximal response (maximal production
rate) is moved toward R0 ¼ 0.5 mm.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9 18775

Fig. 4 e Evolutions vs. temprature of the forward and reverse rate constants of reactions 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 and 12 of Table 1. Units:
cm3 mol¡1 s¡1 for kf1, kf2, kf6, kr6, kf1, kf12 and kr12, and cm6 mol¡2 s¡1 for kr1, kr2 and kr11.

maximal response (maximal production rate) is shifted to-

Conclusion
In this work, numerical simulations have been performed to
visualize the effect of each of the energetic mechanisms
(thermal conduction, mass transport, reactions heat) involved
into the bubble internal energy balance on the sono-
production rate of hydrogen. These computer simulations
have revealed the existence of a plateau for the hydrogen
production rate (especially at around R0 of the maximal
response, for all models), conversely to the total yield where
no optimum is registered for this case. This was explained by
the effect of temperature profiles on the main reactions
involving H2 (taking into account their kinetic constants).
These observations reveal the possibility of an economical
production of hydrogen without using higher acoustic powers,
with respect to the wave frequency. On the other hand, it was
shown that in general, the production rates are increased
either by the decrease of the wave frequency or the increase of
the acoustic power. The ambient bubble size (R0) of the
ward lower values when the ultrasound frequency (for a
constant amplitude) or the acoustic amplitude (for a constant
frequency) is raised. In addition, it is observed that the in-
crease of wave frequency or the decrease of acoustic ampli-
tude cause the range of active bubbles to be narrowed.
Besides, the great importance of the thermal conduction and
the reactions heat has been demonstrated inside the bubble
internal energy balance as they are compared to the case of
the normal model. Moreover, the mechanism of mass trans-
port has a clear impact in this energetic balance, especially
this effect is important in term of total production rates.
Unfortunately, the results of this study could not be related
to the experimental studies of hydrogen production available
in the literature because the available experimental data were
obtained in aqueous solution (i.e., multibubble system/
macroscopic scale), whereas our findings were obtained from
a single bubble (microscopic scale). For passing from a single
bubble scale to multibubble system, we need the determina-
tion of the number of cavitation bubbles as well as the
18776 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9

interactions between bubbles in the aqueous system (phe- pmax Maximum pressure inside the bubble, (Pa)
nomenon ignored in our study). The determination of these p∞ Ambient static pressure, (Pa)
two last parameters is very difficult, if not impossible, due to PA Amplitude of the acoustic pressure, (Pa)
the chaotic nature of acoustic cavitation. Pv Vapor pressure of water, (Pa)
Finally, a debate has been recently opened about the effect R Radius of the bubble, (m)
of saturation gases on the acoustic generation of hydrogen. Rmax Maximum radius of the bubble, (m)
The type of the saturation gases affects significantly the R0 Ambient bubble radius, (m)
chemistry inside the bubble owing to the gas characteristics Rg Ideal gas constant, (J/mol K)
(i.e., thermal conductivity and specific heat capacities, Cp and t Time, (s)
Cv) which enter directly in equations governing the bubble T Temperature inside the bubble, (K)
dynamics (see Eqs. (7), (8) and (14)) as well as the bubble Tmax Maximum temperature inside the bubble, (K)
chemistry (for diatomic and polyatomic gases only, i.e. O2, N2, T∞ Bulk liquid temperature, (K)
CO2, air, …, because monoatomic gases are inert). Addition- x Thermal diffusivity inside the bubble, (m2 s1)
ally, the selection of the right initial conditions (especially, the Cp Heat capacity concentration inside the bubble, (J m3
initial bubble radius and the acoustic amplitude) for each K1)
frequency and gas is of crucial role in determining if these MH2O Molar mass of water, (kg mol1)
bubbles are chemically active (inertial bubbles) or not (dis- m Evaporation-condensation rate of water, (kg m2 s1)
solving or degasing bubbles). All these issues related to the Q Energy transferred by heat exchange, (J s1)
type of saturation gases will be treated in detail in future paper n Molar amount, (mol)
which will investigate the gas atmosphere impacts on the PB Liquid pressure on the external side of the bubble
chemical activity and the size of active bubbles by adopting wall, (Pa)
the same strategy of the present paper (i.e., using different V Volume of the bubble, (m3)
models).
Greek letters
s Surface tension of liquid water, (N m1)
rl Density of liquid water, (kg m3)
Declaration of competing interest
rg Density inside the bubble, (kg m3)
lmix Thermal conductivity of the mixture, (W m1 K1)
The authors declare that they have no known competing
li Thermal conductivity of species i, (W m1 K1)
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
m Dynamic viscosity, (Pa s)
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
a Accommodation coefficient
rH2O Density of water vapor inside the bubble, (kg m3)
rsat,H2O Saturated vapor density (kg m3)
Acknowledgements yki Stoichiometric coefficient of the kth chemical
species in the ith reaction


This study was supported by The Ministry of Higher Education Uk Production rate of the kth species, (mol s1 m3)
and Scientific Research of Algeria (project No.
A16N01UN250320180001) and the General Directorate of Sci-
entific Research and Technological Development (GD-SRTD). references
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for
Research & Innovation, “Ministry of Education” in Saudi Ara-
bia for funding this research work through the project No. [1] Christopher K, Dimitrios R. A review on exergy comparison
of hydrogen production methods from renewable energy
IFKSURG-1441-501.
sources. Energy Environ Sci 2012;5:6640e51. https://doi.org/
10.1039/C2EE01098D.
Nomenclature [2] Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A. A comparative overview of
hydrogen production processes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
Af (Ar) Pre-exponential factor of the forward (reverse) 2017;67:597e611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.044.
reaction, [(cm3 mol1 s1) for two body reaction and [3] Cetinkaya E, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Life cycle assessment of
(cm6 mol2 s1) for three body reaction] various hydrogen production methods. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37:2071e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/
bf (br) Temperature exponent of the forward (reverse)
j.ijhydene.2011.10.064.
reaction
[4] Dincer I, Acar C. Review and evaluation of hydrogen
c Speed of sound in the liquid medium, (m s1) production methods for better sustainability. Int J Hydrogen
Eaf (Ear) Activation energy of the forward (reverse) reaction, Energy 2015;40:11094e111. https://doi.org/10.1016/
(cal mol1) j.ijhydene.2014.12.035.
f Frequency of ultrasonic wave, (Hz) [5] Merouani S, Hamdaoui O. Correlations between the
Ia Acoustic intensity of ultrasonic irradiation, (W m2) sonochemical production rate of hydrogen and the
maximum temperature and pressure reached in acoustic
kf (kr) Forward (reverse) reaction constant, [(cm3 mol1 s1)
bubbles. Arabian J Sci Eng 2018;43:6109e17. https://doi.org/
for two body reaction and(cm 6 mol2 s1) for three
10.1007/s13369-018-3266-3.
body reaction] [6] Chibani A, Merouani S, Bougriou C, Hamadi L. Heat and mass
p Pressure inside a bubble, (Pa) transfer during the storage of hydrogen in LaNi5-based metal
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9
hydride: 2D simulation results for a large scale, multi-pipes
fixed- bed reactor. Int J Heat Mass Tran 2019:118939. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.118939.
[7] Chibani A, Bougriou C, Merouani S. Simulation of hydrogen
absorption/desorption on metal hydride LaNi5-H2: mass and
heat transfer. Appl Therm Eng 2018;142:110e7. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.06.078.
[8] Dincer I, Acar C. Innovation in hydrogen production. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:14843e64. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.04.107.
[9] Acar C, Dincer I. Comparative assessment of hydrogen
production methods from renewable and non-renewable
sources. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:1e12. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.10.060.
[10] Kothari R, Buddhi D, Sawhney RL. Comparison of
environmental and economic aspects of various hydrogen
production methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2008;12:553e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.07.012.
[11] Dincer I. Green methods for hydrogen production. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:1954e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2011.03.173.
[12] Balat M. Possible methods for hydrogen production, energy
sources, Part A recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2008;31:39e50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567030701468068.
[13] Islam MH, Lamb JJ, Lien KM, Burheim OS, Hihn J-Y, Pollet BG.
Novel fuel production based on sonochemistry and
sonoelectrochemistry. ECS Trans 2019;92:1e16. https://
doi.org/10.1149/09210.0001ecst.
[14] Chakik FE, Kaddami M, Mikou M. Effect of operating
parameters on hydrogen production by electrolysis of water.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;40:25550e7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.07.015.
[15] Gadhe A, Sonawane SS, Varma MN. Enhancement effect of
hematite and nickel nanoparticles on biohydrogen
production from dairy wastewater. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2015;40:4502e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.02.046.
[16] Guo Y, Kim S, Sung S, Lee P. Effect of ultrasonic treatment of
digestion sludge on bio-hydrogen production from sucrose
by anaerobic fermentation. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2010;35:3450e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2010.01.090.
[17] Kapdan IK, Kargi F. Bio-hydrogen production from waste
materials. Enzym Microb Technol 2006;38:569e82. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2005.09.015.
[18] Merouani S, Hamdaoui O. The sonochemical approach for
hydrogen production. In: Inamuddin A Asiri, editor.
Sustainable green chemical processes and their allied
applications. Nanotechnology in the life sciences. Springer;
2020. p. 1e29. http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.
1007/978-3-030-42284-4_1.
[19] Islam MH, Burheim OS, Pollet BG, Islam H, Burheim OS,
Pollet BG, Islam MH, Burheim OS, Pollet BG. Sonochemical
and sonoelectrochemical production of hydrogen. Ultrason
Sonochem 2018;51:1e86. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ultsonch.2018.08.024.
[20] Gentili PL, Penconi M, Ortica F, Cotana F, Rossi F, Elisei F.
Synergistic effects in hydrogen production through water
sonophotolysis catalyzed by new La2xGa2yIn2(1-x-y)O3 solid
solutions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:9042e9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.09.027.
[21] Penconi M, Rossi F, Ortica F, Elisei F, Gentili PL. Hydrogen
production from water by photolysis, sonolysis and
sonophotolysis with solid solutions of rare earth, gallium
and indium oxides as heterogeneous catalysts. Sustain
Times 2015;7:9310e25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7079310.
[22] Rossi F, Nicolini A, Filipponi M, Corsi N. Study of catalysts
for water photosonolysis to increase the Hydrogen
18777
production. Hypothesis VIII Lisbon; 2009. p. 1e6. April 1-3,
Portugal.
[23] Lean ~ o EP, Anceno AJ, Babel S. Ultrasonic pretreatment of
palm oil mill effluent: impact on biohydrogen production,
bioelectricity generation, and underlying microbial
communities. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:12241e9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.06.007.
[24] Gadhe A, Sonawane SS, Varma MN. Evaluation of
ultrasonication as a treatment strategy for enhancement of
biohydrogen production from complex distillery wastewater
and process optimization. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2014;39:10041e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2014.04.153.
[25] Leighton TG. The acoustic bubble. London, UK: Academic
press; 1994.
[26] Rae J, Ashokkumar M, Eulaerts O, Von Sonntag C, Reisse J,
Grieser F. Estimation of ultrasound induced cavitation
bubble temperatures in aqueous solutions. Ultrason
Sonochem 2005;12:325e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ultsonch.2004.06.007.
[27] Ashokkumar M. The characterization of acoustic cavitation
bubbles - an overview. Ultrason Sonochem 2011;18:864e72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2010.11.016.
[28] Didenko YT, McNamara WB, Suslick KS. Hot spot conditions
during cavitation in water. J Am Chem Soc 1999;121:5817e8.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ja9844635.
[29] Yasui K, Tuziuti T, Iida Y, Mitome H. Theoretical study of
the ambient-pressure dependence of sonochemical
reactions. J Chem Phys 2003;119:346. https://doi.org/
10.1063/1.1576375.
[30] Merouani S, Hamdaoui O, Rezgui Y, Guemini M. Sensitivity of
free radicals production in acoustically driven bubble to the
ultrasonic frequency and nature of dissolved gases. Ultrason
Sonochem 2014;22:41e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ultsonch.2014.07.011.
[31] Merouani S, Hamdaoui O, Rezgui Y, Guemini M. Computer
simulation of chemical reactions occurring in collapsing
acoustical bubble: dependence of free radicals production on
operational conditions. Res Chem Intermed 2015;41:881e97.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11164-013-1240-y.
[32] Merouani S, Hamdaoui O, Rezgui Y, Guemini M.
Computational engineering study of hydrogen production
via ultrasonic cavitation in water. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41:832e44. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.11.058.
[33] Rashwan SS, Dincer I, Mohany A, Pollet BG. The Sono-Hydro-
Gen process (Ultrasound induced hydrogen production ):
challenges and opportunities. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2019;44:14500e26. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.04.115.
[34] Merouani S, Hamdaoui O. The size of active bubbles for the
production of hydrogen in sonochemical reaction field.
Ultrason Sonochem 2016;32:320e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ultsonch.2016.03.026.
[35] Merouani S, Hamdaoui O, Rezgui Y, Guemini M. Mechanism
of the sonochemical production of hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2015;40:4056e64. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.01.150.
[36] Naidu DVP, Rajan R, Kumar R, Gandy KS, Araker VH,
Chandrasekaran S. Modelling of a batch sonochemical
reactor. Chem Eng Sci 1994;49:877e88. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0009-2509(94)80024-3.
[37] Sochard S, Wilhelm AM, Delmas H. Modelling of free radicals
production in a collapsing gas-vapour bubble. Ultrason
Sonochem 1997;4:77e84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-
4177(97)00021-7.
[38] Sochard S, Wilhelm a-M, Delmas H. Gas-vapour bubble
dynamics and homogeneous sonochemistry. Chem Eng Sci
18778 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9
1998;53:239e54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(97)
85744-2.
[39] Kamath V, Prosperetti A, Egolfopoulos FN. A theoretical
study of sonoluminescence. J Acoust Soc Am 1993;94:248e60.
[40] Sivasankar T, Moholkar VS. Mechanistic approach to
intensification of sonochemical degradation of phenol.
Chem Eng J 2009;149:57e69. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cej.2008.10.004.
[41] Kerboua K, Hamdaoui O. Numerical estimation of ultrasonic
production of hydrogen: effect of ideal and real gas based
models. Ultrason Sonochem 2018;40. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ultsonch.2017.07.005.
[42] 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. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2919119.
[43] Colussi AJ, Weavers LK, Hoffmann MR, et al. Chemical bubble
dynamics and quantitative sonochemistry. J Phys Chem
1998;102:6927e34. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp980930t.
[44] He P, Yuan L. Modelling single-bubble sonoluminescence
with chemical reactions and Coulomb interactions. World
Congr Ultrasonics/Ultrasonics Int 2005:1e5. Aug.29-Sept.1,
Beijing, China.
[45] Kerboua K, Hamdaoui O. Sonochemical production of
hydrogen: enhancement by summed harmonics. Chem Phys
2019;519:27e37. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chemphys.2018.11.019.
[46] Kerboua K, Hamdaoui O, Al-Zahrani S. Sonochemical
production of hydrogen: a numerical model applied to the
recovery of aqueous methanol waste under Oxygen-Argon
atmosphere. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2020. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ep.13511. in press.
[47] Burdin F, Tsochatzidis NA, Guiraud P, Wilhelm AM,
Delmas H. Characterisation of the acoustic cavitation cloud
by two laser techniques. Ultrason Sonochem 1999;6:43e51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4177(98)00035-2.
[48] Tsochatzidis NA, Guiraud P, Wilhelm AM, Delmas H.
Determination of velocity, size and concentration of
ultrasonic cavitation bubbles by the phase-Doppler
technique. Chem Eng Sci 2001;56:1831e40. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0009-2509(00)00460-7.
[49] Avvaru B, Pandit AB. Oscillating bubble concentration and its
size distribution using acoustic emission spectra. Ultrason
Sonochem 2009;16:105e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ultsonch.2008.07.003.
[50] Iida Y, Ashokkumar M, Tuziuti T, Kozuka T, Yasui K,
Towata A, Lee J. Bubble population phenomena in
sonochemical reactor: I Estimation of bubble size
distribution and its number density with pulsed sonication -
laser diffraction method. Ultrason Sonochem 2010;17:473e9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2009.08.018.
[51] Labouret S, Frohly J. Bubble size distribution estimation via
void rate dissipation in gas saturated liquid. Application to
ultrasonic cavitation bubble field. Eur Phys J Appl Phys
2002;19:39e54. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjap:2002047.
[52] Brotchie A, Grieser F, Ashokkumar M. Effect of power and
frequency on bubble-size distributions in acoustic cavitation.
Phys Rev Lett 2009;102:1e4. https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.102.084302.
[53] Kerboua K, Merouani S, Hamdaoui O, Alghyamah A, Islam H,
Hansen HE, Pollet BG. How do dissolved gases affect the
sonochemical process of hydrogen production? An overview
of thermodynamic and mechanistic effects e on the “ hot
spot theory. Ultrason Sonochem 2021;72:105422. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105422.
[54] Yasui K. Effects of thermal conduction on bubble dynamics
near the sonoluminescence threshold. J Acoust Soc Am
1995;98:2772e82. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.413242.
[55] Yasui K, Tuziuti T, Kanematsu W. Extreme conditions in a
dissolving air nanobubble. Phys Rev E 2016;94. https://
doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.94.013106. 0131061_013106e13.
[56] Holzfuss J. Unstable diffusion and chemical dissociation
of a single sonoluminescing bubble. Phys Rev E
2005;71:026304. https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevE.71.026304.
[57] Toegel R, Lohse D. Phase diagrams for sonoluminescing
bubbles: a comparison between experiment and theory. J
Chem Phys 2003;118:1863e75. https://doi.org/10.1063/
1.1531610.
[58] Yasui K. Effect of liquid temperature on sonoluminescence.
Phys Rev E 2001;64:016310. https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevE.64.016310.
[59] Yasui K. A new formulation of bubble dynamics for
sonoluminescence. Waseda University; 1996. PhD thesis.
[60] Shen Y, Yasui K, Zhua T, Ashokkumar M. A model for the
effect of bulk liquid viscosity on cavitation bubble dynamics.
Phys Chem Chem Phys 2017;19:20635e40. https://doi.org/
10.1039/C7CP03194G.
[61] Beckett MA, Hua I. Impact of ultrasonic frequency on
aqueous sonoluminescence and sonochemistry. J Phys Chem
2001;105:3796e802. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp003226x.
[62] Kanthale P, Ashokkumar M, Grieser F. Sonoluminescence,
sonochemistry (H2O2 yield) and bubble dynamics: frequency
and power effects. Ultrason Sonochem 2008;15:143e50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2007.03.003.
[63] Torres RA, Pe trier C, Combet E, Carrier M, Pulgarin C.
Ultrasonic cavitation applied to the treatment of bisphenol
A. Effect of sonochemical parameters and analysis of BPA by-
products. Ultrason Sonochem 2008;15:605e11. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2007.07.003.
[64] Petrier C, David B, Laguian S. Ultrasonic degradation at 20
kHz and 500 kHz of atrazine and pentachlorophenol in
aqueous solution: preliminary results. Chemosphere
1996;32:1709e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(96)00088-
4.
[65] Petrier C, Francony A. Ultrasonic waste-water treatment:
incidence of ultrasonic frequency on the rate of phenol and
carbon tetrachloride degradation. Ultrason Sonochem
1997;4:295e300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4177(97)00036-
9.
[66] Jiang Y, Petrier C, Waite TD. Sonolysis of 4-chlorophenol in
aqueous solution: effects of substrate concentration,
aqueous temperature and ultrasonic frequency. Ultrason
Sonochem 2006;13:415e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ultsonch.2005.07.003.
[67] Merouani S, Ferkous H, Hamdaoui O, Rezgui Y, Guemini M. A
method for predicting the number of active bubbles in
sonochemical reactors. Ultrason Sonochem 2014;22:51e8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2014.07.015.
[68] Yang L, Sostaric JZ, Rathman JF, Weavers LK. Effect of
ultrasound frequency on pulsed sonolytic degradation of
octylbenzene sulfonic acid. J Phys Chem B 2008;112:852e8.
https://doi.org/10.1021/jp077482m.
[69] Koda S, Kimura T, Kondo T, Mitome H. A standard method to
calibrate sonochemical efficiency of an individual reaction
system. Ulrasonics Sonochem 2003;10:149e56. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4177(03)00084-1.
[70] Kang J-W, Hung H-M, Lin A, Hoffmann MR. Sonolytic
destruction of methyl tert-Butyl ether by ultrasonic
irradiation: the role of O3, H2O2, frequency, and power
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 8 7 6 7 e1 8 7 7 9 18779

density. Environ Sci Technol 1999;33:3199e205. https://
doi.org/10.1021/es9810383.
[71] Kerboua K, Hamdaoui O. Influence of reactions heats on
variation of radius , temperature , pressure and chemical
species amounts within a single acoustic cavitation bubble.
Ultrason Sonochem 2018;41:449e57. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ultsonch.2017.10.001.
[72] To€ gel R. Reaction-diffusion kinetics of a single
sonoluminescing bubble. UK: University of Twente; 2002.
PhD Thesis.
[73] Yasui K. Chemical reactions in a sonoluminescing bubble. J
Phys Soc Japan. 1997;66:2911e20. https://doi.org/10.1143/
JPSJ.66.2911.