4.7 Article

Comparison of characterization methods in high frequency sonochemical reactors of differing configurations

Journal

ULTRASONICS SONOCHEMISTRY
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 547-554

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2009.10.024

Keywords

Reaction system; Calorimetry; Weissler dosimetry; Nitrate formation; Reactor configuration; Sonochemical efficiency

Funding

  1. INRS ETE (Quebec)
  2. FQRNT
  3. AUF
  4. Region Rhones Alpes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to compare different characterization methods in order to evaluate the sonochemical efficiency of a cavitational reactor. The selected characterization methods were calorimetry and dosimetry based on potassium iodide oxidation or nitrite and nitrate ion formation. The effects of experimental parameters on physical and chemical effects of ultrasound were quantified with two transducers at a frequency of 366 kHz. The studied factors comprised temperature (16-28 degrees C) acoustic power (6-38 W), power density (4-61 W L-1) and reactor configuration (D-reactor 1 = 65 mm, D-reactor 2 = 102 mm). Spectrophotometry was compared to ionic chromatography as a method to quantify nitrite and nitrate ions. Spectrometry was shown to be as representative as ionic chromatography. The reaction system based on the formation of both nitrite and nitrate ions was demonstrated to be as reliable as a potassium iodide dosimeter. The representativity of calorimetry was limited since part of acoustic energy was assumed to be used in the chemical reactions observed by dosimetry. Similar sonochemical efficiencies resulted from an increase of sonified surface (D-reaction 1 = 65 mm vs. D-reactor 2 = 102 mm) coupled to a 2-time decrease in power density at a constant emitting surface. The effect of emitting-to-sonified surface area ratio on the acoustic field was apparently limited by the height of the liquid. (c) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available