Comparison of Bubble Size Distributions Inferred from Acoustic, Optical Visualisation, and Laser Diffraction

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61388998%3A_____%2F19%3A00519346" target="_blank" >RIV/61388998:_____/19:00519346 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/colloids/colloids-03-00065/article_deploy/colloids-03-00065.pdf" target="_blank" >https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/colloids/colloids-03-00065/article_deploy/colloids-03-00065.pdf</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/colloids3040065" target="_blank" >10.3390/colloids3040065</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of Bubble Size Distributions Inferred from Acoustic, Optical Visualisation, and Laser Diffraction

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Bubble measurement has been widely discussed in the literature and comparison studies have been widely performed to validate the results obtained for various forms of bubble size inferences. This paper explores three methods used to obtain a bubble size distribution-optical detection, laser diffraction and acoustic inferences-for a bubble cloud. Each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages due to their intrinsic inference methodology or design flaws due to lack of specificity in measurement. It is clearly demonstrated that seeing bubbles and hearing them are substantially and quantitatively different. The main hypothesis being tested is that for a bubble cloud, acoustic methods are able to detect smaller bubbles compared to the other techniques, as acoustic measurements depend on an intrinsic bubble property, whereas photonics and optical methods are unable to ´see´ a smaller bubble that is behind a larger bubble. Acoustic methods provide a real-time size distribution for a bubble cloud, whereas for other techniques, appropriate adjustments or compromises must be made in order to arrive at robust data. Acoustic bubble spectrometry consistently records smaller bubbles that were not detected by the other techniques. The difference is largest for acoustic methods and optical methods, with size differences ranging from 5-79% in average bubble size. Differences in size between laser diffraction and optical methods ranged from 5-68%. The differences between laser diffraction and acoustic methods are less, and range between 0% (i.e., in agreement) up to 49%. There is a wider difference observed between the optical method, laser diffraction and acoustic methods whilst good agreement between laser diffraction and acoustic methods. The significant disagreement between laser diffraction and acoustic method (35% and 49%) demonstrates the hypothesis, as there is a higher proportion of smaller bubbles in these measurements (i.e., the smaller bubbles 'hide' during measurement via laser diffraction). This study, which shows that acoustic bubble spectrometry is able to detect smaller bubbles than laser diffraction and optical techniques. This is supported by heat and mass transfer studies that show enhanced performance due to increased interfacial area of microbubbles, compared to fine bubbles.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of Bubble Size Distributions Inferred from Acoustic, Optical Visualisation, and Laser Diffraction

Popis výsledku anglicky

Bubble measurement has been widely discussed in the literature and comparison studies have been widely performed to validate the results obtained for various forms of bubble size inferences. This paper explores three methods used to obtain a bubble size distribution-optical detection, laser diffraction and acoustic inferences-for a bubble cloud. Each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages due to their intrinsic inference methodology or design flaws due to lack of specificity in measurement. It is clearly demonstrated that seeing bubbles and hearing them are substantially and quantitatively different. The main hypothesis being tested is that for a bubble cloud, acoustic methods are able to detect smaller bubbles compared to the other techniques, as acoustic measurements depend on an intrinsic bubble property, whereas photonics and optical methods are unable to ´see´ a smaller bubble that is behind a larger bubble. Acoustic methods provide a real-time size distribution for a bubble cloud, whereas for other techniques, appropriate adjustments or compromises must be made in order to arrive at robust data. Acoustic bubble spectrometry consistently records smaller bubbles that were not detected by the other techniques. The difference is largest for acoustic methods and optical methods, with size differences ranging from 5-79% in average bubble size. Differences in size between laser diffraction and optical methods ranged from 5-68%. The differences between laser diffraction and acoustic methods are less, and range between 0% (i.e., in agreement) up to 49%. There is a wider difference observed between the optical method, laser diffraction and acoustic methods whilst good agreement between laser diffraction and acoustic methods. The significant disagreement between laser diffraction and acoustic method (35% and 49%) demonstrates the hypothesis, as there is a higher proportion of smaller bubbles in these measurements (i.e., the smaller bubbles 'hide' during measurement via laser diffraction). This study, which shows that acoustic bubble spectrometry is able to detect smaller bubbles than laser diffraction and optical techniques. This is supported by heat and mass transfer studies that show enhanced performance due to increased interfacial area of microbubbles, compared to fine bubbles.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10305 - Fluids and plasma physics (including surface physics)

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA17-08218S" target="_blank" >GA17-08218S: Materiály pro skladování tepelné energie: termofyzikální charakterizace pro návrh akumulátorů tepla</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Colloids and Interfaces

ISSN

2504-5377

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

3

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

20

Strana od-do

65

Kód UT WoS článku

000505576000008

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—