首页> 外文期刊>Colloids and Interfaces >Comparison of Bubble Size Distributions Inferred from Acoustic, Optical Visualisation, and Laser Diffraction
【24h】

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

机译:声学,光学可视化和激光衍射推断的气泡尺寸分布的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

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.
机译:在文献中广泛讨论了泡沫测量,并且广泛进行了比较研究以验证针对各种形式的泡沫尺寸推理获得的结果。本文探讨了三种方法,用于获得气泡尺寸分布和MDASH;光学检测,激光衍射和声学推断和MDASH;对于泡沫云。由于缺乏测量特异性,这些方法中的每种方法都具有由于其内在推理方法或设计缺陷而缺点。清楚地证明,看到气泡和听力它们基本上和定量地不同。正在测试的主要假设是,对于气泡云,与其他技术相比,声学方法能够检测较小的气泡,因为声学测量取决于内在气泡特性,而光子学和光学方法无法“见“一个较小的泡沫较大的泡沫。声学方法为气泡云提供实时尺寸分布,而对于其他技术,必须进行适当的调整或妥协,以便到达稳健的数据。声学气泡光谱法一致地记录不通过其他技术检测的较小气泡。声学方法和光学方法的差异最大,尺寸差异从5&ndash的范围内;平均气泡尺寸为79%。激光衍射与光学方法之间的差异范围为5– 68%。激光衍射和声学方法之间的差异较小,并且在0%(即,协议)之间的范围高达49%。在光学方法,激光衍射和声学方法之间观察到更宽的差异​​,同时激光衍射与声学方法之间的良好一致性。激光衍射和声学方法(35%和49%)之间的显着分歧证明了假设,因为这些测量中的较小气泡比例较高(即,较小的气泡和Lsquo;隐藏’通过激光衍射测量期间)。该研究表明,声学气泡光谱光谱法能够检测比激光衍射和光学技术更小的气泡。与细气泡相比,热量和传质研究支持的热量和传质研究支持,这表明了由于微泡的界面面积增加而具有增强的性能。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号