Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:56:25.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ultrasonic atomization of liquids in drop-chain acoustic fountains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Julianna C. Simon ,
Oleg A. Sapozhnikov ,
Vera A. Khokhlova ,
Lawrence A. Crum  and
Michael R. Bailey
Julianna C. Simon*
Affiliation:
Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA
Oleg A. Sapozhnikov
Affiliation:
Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA Department of Acoustics, Physics Faculty, Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation
Vera A. Khokhlova
Affiliation:
Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA Department of Acoustics, Physics Faculty, Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation
Lawrence A. Crum
Affiliation:
Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA
Michael R. Bailey
Affiliation:
Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When focused ultrasound waves of moderate intensity in liquid encounter an air interface, a chain of drops emerges from the liquid surface to form what is known as a drop-chain fountain. Atomization, or the emission of micro-droplets, occurs when the acoustic intensity exceeds a liquid-dependent threshold. While the cavitation-wave hypothesis, which states that atomization arises from a combination of capillary-wave instabilities and cavitation bubble oscillations, is currently the most accepted theory of atomization, more data on the roles of cavitation, capillary waves, and even heat deposition or boiling would be valuable. In this paper, we experimentally test whether bubbles are a significant mechanism of atomization in drop-chain fountains. High-speed photography was used to observe the formation and atomization of drop-chain fountains composed of water and other liquids. For a range of ultrasonic frequencies and liquid sound speeds, it was found that the drop diameters approximately equalled the ultrasonic wavelengths. When water was exchanged for other liquids, it was observed that the atomization threshold increased with shear viscosity. Upon heating water, it was found that the time to commence atomization decreased with increasing temperature. Finally, water was atomized in an overpressure chamber where it was found that atomization was significantly diminished when the static pressure was increased. These results indicate that bubbles, generated by either acoustic cavitation or boiling, contribute significantly to atomization in the drop-chain fountain.

JFM classification

Acoustics: Acoustics Drops and Bubbles: Aerosols/atomization Drops and Bubbles: Drops and Bubbles
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 766 , 10 March 2015 , pp. 129 - 146
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2015 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antonevich, J. N. 1959 Ultrasonic atomization of liquids. Ultrason. Engng: Trans. IRE Professional Group 6, 6–15.Google Scholar
Bailey, M. R., Couret, L. N., Sapozhnikov, O. A., Khokhlova, V. A., ter Haar, G., Vaezy, S., Shu, X. & Crum, L. A. 2001 Use of overpressure to assess the role of bubbles in focused ultrasound lesion shape in vitro . Ultrasound Med. Biol. 27, 695–708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barreras, F., Amaveda, H. & Lozano, A. 2002 Transient high-frequency ultrasonic water atomization. Exp. Fluids 33, 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassett, J. D. & Bright, A. W. 1976 Observations concerning the mechanism of atomisation in an ultrasonic fountain. J. Aero. Sci. 7, 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blamey, J., Yeo, L. L. & Friend, J. R. 2013 Microscale capillary wave turbulence excited by high frequency vibration. Langmuir 29, 3835–3845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boguslavskii, Y. Y. & Eknadiosyants, O. K. 1969 Physical mechanism of the acoustic atomization of a liquid. Sov. Phys. Acoust. 15, 14–21.Google Scholar
Bronskaya, L. M., Vigderman, V. S., Sokol’skaya, A. V. & El’piner, I. E. 1968 Influence of the static pressure on ultrasonic chemical and biological effects. Sov. Phys. Acoust. 13, 374–375.Google Scholar
Collins, D. J., Manor, O., Winkler, A., Schmidt, H., Friend, J. R. & Yeo, L. L. 2012 Atomization off thin water films generated by high-frequency substrate wave vibrations. Phys. Rev. E 86, 056312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crum, L. A. 1979 Tensile strength of water. Nature 278, 148–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eknadiosyants, O. K. 1968 Role of cavitation in the process of liquid atomization in an ultrasonic fountain. Sov. Phys. Acoust. 14, 80–84.Google Scholar
Gershenzon, E. L. & Eknadiosyants, O. K. 1964 The nature of liquid atomization in an ultrasonic fountain. Sov. Phys. Acoust. 10, 127–132.Google Scholar
Hill, C. R. 1971 Ultrasonic exposure thresholds for changes in cells and tissues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 51, 667–672.Google Scholar
Il’in, B. I. & Eknadiosyants, O. K. 1967 Nature of the atomization of liquids in an ultrasonic fountain. Sov. Phys. Acoust. 12, 269–275.Google Scholar
Il’in, B. I. & Eknadiosyants, O. K. 1969 Influence of static pressure on the utlrasonic fountain effect in a liquid. Sov. Phys. Acoust. 14, 452–455.Google Scholar
Khokhlova, V. A., Bailey, M. R., Reed, J. A., Cunitz, B. W., Kaczkowski, P. J. & Crum, L. A. 2006 Effects of nonlinear propagation, cavitation, and boiling in lesion formation by high intensity focused ultrasound in a gel phantom. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119, 1834–1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kujawska, T. 2012 Pulsed focused nonlinear acoustic fields from clinically relevant therapeutic sources in layered media: experimental data and numerical prediction results. Arch. Acoust. 37, 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, R. J. 1962 Ultrasonic atomization of liquids. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34, 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, A. D., Cain, C. C., Hall, T. L., Fowlkes, J. B. & Xu, Z. 2013 Probability of cavitation for single ultrasound pulses applied to tissues and tissue-mimicking materials. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 39, 449–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCubbin, J. K. Jr 1953 The particle size distribution in fog produced by ultrasonic radiation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25, 1013–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medwin, H. 1975 Sound speed in water: a simple equation for realistic parameters. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 58, 1318–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Movassat, M.2012 Bubble dynamics, oscillations and breakup under forced vibration. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
National Physical Laboratories 2013 Table of physical and chemical constants. URL: http://kayelaby.npl.co.uk.Google Scholar
O’Neil, H. T. 1949 Theory of focusing radiators. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121, 516–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, A., Yeo, L. Y. & Friend, J. R. 2008 Interfacial destabilization and atomization driven by surface acoustic waves. Phys. Fluids 20, 074103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozenberg, L. D. & Eknadiosyants, O. K. 1960 Kinetics of ultrasonic fog formation. Sov. Phys. Acoust. 6, 369–374.Google Scholar
Rozenberg, L. D.(Ed.) 1973 Physical Principles of Ultrasonic Technology, vol. 2. Plenum.Google Scholar
Sapozhnikov, O. A., Khokhlova, V. A., Bailey, M. R., Williams, J. C., McAteer, J. A., Cleveland, R. O. & Crum, L. A. 2002 Effect of overpressure and pulse repetition frequency on cavitation in shock wave lithotripsy. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112, 1183–1195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepherd, J. E.1981 Dynamics of vapor explosions: rapid evaporation and instability of butane droplets exploding at the superheat limit. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Simon, J. C., Sapozhnikov, O. A., Khokhlova, V. A., Wang, Y.-N., Crum, L. A. & Bailey, M. R. 2012 Ultrasonic atomization of tissue and its role in tissue fractionation by high intensity focused ultrasound. Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 8061–8078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sollner, B. Y. K. 1936 The mechanism of the formation of fogs by ultrasonic waves. Trans. Faraday Soc. 32, 1532–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Engineering Toolbox 2013 URL: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com.Google Scholar
Tomita, Y. & Tanaka, S. 2012 Focused ultrasound induced free-surface breakup and damage in acrylic plates. AIP Conf. Proc. 1474, 123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomotika, S. 1935 On the instability of a cylindrical thread of a viscous liquid surrounded by another viscous fluid. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 150, 322–337.Google Scholar
Tomotika, S. 1936 Breaking up of a drop of viscous liquid immersed in another viscous fluid which is extending at a uniform rate. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 153, 302–318.Google Scholar
Topp, M. N. 1973 Ultrasonic atomization – a photographic study of the mechanism of disintegration. Aero. Sci. 4, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treeby, B. E., Cox, B. T., Zhang, E. Z., Patch, S. K. & Beard, P. C. 2009 Measurement of broadband temperature-dependent ultrasonic attenuation and dispersion using photoacoustics. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 56, 1666–1676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, R. W. & Loomis, A. L. 1927 Physical and biological effects of high-frequency sound-waves of great intensity. Phil. Mag. 4, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simon et al. supplementary movie

Movie showing figures 4 and 5 in video format. The effect of ultrasonic frequency on water atomization in the drop-chain fountain was investigated for three different focused ultrasound transducers with operational frequencies of 1.04 MHz, 155 kHz, and 2.165 MHz. Atomization appears relatively similar between the three frequencies. The experimental setup is shown in figure 2 and consists of a focused ultrasound transducer in water focused at an air interface. All movies are played back at 10 fps.

Download Simon et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 2.5 MB

Simon et al. supplementary movie

Movie showing figures 4 and 5 in video format. The effect of ultrasonic frequency on water atomization in the drop-chain fountain was investigated for three different focused ultrasound transducers with operational frequencies of 1.04 MHz, 155 kHz, and 2.165 MHz. Atomization appears relatively similar between the three frequencies. The experimental setup is shown in figure 2 and consists of a focused ultrasound transducer in water focused at an air interface. All movies are played back at 10 fps.

Download Simon et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 2.6 MB

Simon et al. supplementary movie

Movie showing figure 8 in video format. This movie shows the formation and atomization of drop-chain fountains of olive oil and n-propanol. It is apparent that olive oil atomization appears qualitatively quite different from water atomization, while n-propanol atomization appears very similar to water atomization. The experimental setup is shown in figure 2, with the addition of a custom-designed holder with an acoustically transparent, thin film bottom. The container is partially submerged in the water tank for coupling to the transducer while maintaining a free, liquid-air interface. All movies are played back at 10 fps.

Download Simon et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 3 MB

Simon et al. supplementary movie

Movie showing figure 8 in video format. This movie shows the formation and atomization of drop-chain fountains of olive oil and n-propanol. It is apparent that olive oil atomization appears qualitatively quite different from water atomization, while n-propanol atomization appears very similar to water atomization. The experimental setup is shown in figure 2, with the addition of a custom-designed holder with an acoustically transparent, thin film bottom. The container is partially submerged in the water tank for coupling to the transducer while maintaining a free, liquid-air interface. All movies are played back at 10 fps.

Download Simon et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 1.9 MB

Simon et al. supplementary movie

Movie showing figure 9 in video format. In this movie (recorded at 10,000 fps and played back at 10 fps), water atomization is shown for a 2.127 MHz transducer operating at 850 W/cm² for four different static pressure levels - 0.1 MPa, 2.41 MPa, 8.27 MPa, and 13.79 MPa. Water atomization appears very dramatic at atmospheric

Download Simon et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 3.1 MB

Simon et al. supplementary movie

Movie showing figure 9 in video format. In this movie (recorded at 10,000 fps and played back at 10 fps), water atomization is shown for a 2.127 MHz transducer operating at 850 W/cm² for four different static pressure levels - 0.1 MPa, 2.41 MPa, 8.27 MPa, and 13.79 MPa. Water atomization appears very dramatic at atmospheric

Download Simon et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 6.2 MB

Simon et al. supplementary movie

Movie showing figure 10 in video format. In this movie (recorded at 10,000 fps and played back at 10 fps), water atomization is shown for a 2.127-MHz transducer operating at 1200 W/cm² for four different static pressure levels - 0.1 MPa, 2.41 MPa, 8.27 MPa, and 13.79 MPa. Atomization, which is very dramatic at atmospheric pressure is reduced as the static pressure level increases up to 8.27 MPa, but when the pressure reaches 13.79 MPa droplets are again released.

Download Simon et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 5.4 MB

Simon et al. supplementary movie

Movie showing figure 10 in video format. In this movie (recorded at 10,000 fps and played back at 10 fps), water atomization is shown for a 2.127-MHz transducer operating at 1200 W/cm² for four different static pressure levels - 0.1 MPa, 2.41 MPa, 8.27 MPa, and 13.79 MPa. Atomization, which is very dramatic at atmospheric pressure is reduced as the static pressure level increases up to 8.27 MPa, but when the pressure reaches 13.79 MPa droplets are again released.

Download Simon et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 7.6 MB