4.7 Article

The size of active bubbles for the production of hydrogen in sonochemical reaction field

期刊

ULTRASONICS SONOCHEMISTRY
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 320-327

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.03.026

关键词

Water sonolysis; Cavitation bubbles; Hydrogen production; Size of active bubbles; Computer simulation

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of Algeria [A16N01UN230120130010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sonication of aqueous solution generates microscopic cavitation bubbles that may growth and violently collapse to produce highly reactive species (i.e. (OH)-O-center dot, HO2 center dot, and H2O2), hydrogen and emit light, sonoluminescence. The bubble size is a key parameter that influences the chemical activity of the system. This wok aims to study theoretically the size of active bubbles for the production of hydrogen in ultrasonic cavitation field in water using a single bubble sonochemistry model. The effect of several parameters such as frequency of ultrasound, acoustic intensity and liquid temperature on the range of sonochemically active bubbles for the production of hydrogen was clarified. The numerical simulation results showed that the size of active bubbles is an interval which includes an optimum value at which the production rate of H-2 is maximal. It was shown that the range of ambient radius for an active bubble as well as the optimum bubble radius for the production of hydrogen increased with increasing acoustic intensity and decreased with increasing ultrasound frequency and bulk liquid temperature. It was found that the range of ambient bubble radius dependence of the operational conditions followed the same trend as those reported experimentally for sonoluminescing bubbles. Comparison with literature data showed a good agreement between the theoretical determined optimum bubble sizes for the production of hydrogen and the experimental reported sizes for sonoluminescing bubbles. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据