1.10 The Three Types of Sonochemical Reactions
15
tion of particles sizes, enhanced mass transfer, emulsification, harsh mixing, etc.
responsible for enhanced kinetics without changing the nature of the mechanistic
pathway.
• Type III: Sonochemical reactions occurring in heterogeneous phase but able also
to follow an S.E.T mechanism. These reactions possess an ambivalent character
as chemical and physical effects of ultrasound may jointly impact favourably the
issue of a reaction. It is usually very troublesome to determine which effect is in
particular responsible and why. The most striking example is probably the first
known example of ‘sonochemical switching’ found in 1984 by T. Ando et al. In
that chemical system, resulting products obtained under mechanical stirring and
ultrasonic irradiation are different. The authors stated that the use of ‘ultrasound
completely switched the reaction pathway from electrophilic aromatic substitution
to an aliphatic nucleophilic substitution’.
References
Al-Juboori RA, Yusaf T, Bowtell L, Aravinthan V (2014) Energy characterisation of ultrasonic
systems for industrial processes. Ultrasonics 57:18–30
Briquard P (1983) Les Ultrasons. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris
Chatel G (2016) Acoustic cavitation. In: Chatel G (ed) Sonochemistry: new opportunities for green
chemistry. Chap. 2, pp 13–15
De La Rochebrochard S, Suptil J, Blais JF, Naffrechoux E (2012) Sonochemical efficiency dependence on liquid height and frequency in an improved sonochemical reactor. Ultrason Sonochem
19:280–285
Dezhkunov NV, Fedorinchick MP, Kotukhov AV (2013) Device for the HIFU cavitation activity
monitoring. In: 13th Meeting of the European Society of Sonochemistry, 1–5 July, Lviv, Ukraine
Gogate PR, Pandit AB (2005) A review and assessment of hydrodynamic cavitation as a technology
for the future. Ultrason Sonochem 12:21–27
Hatanaka S, Yasui K, Tuziuti T, Mitome H (2000) Difference in threshold between sono- and
sonochemical luminescence. Jpn J Appl Phys 39(2962):2966
Hirano K, Kobayashi T (2016) Coumarin fluorimetry to quantitatively detectable OH radicals in
ultrasound aqueous medium. Ultrason Sonochem 30:18–27
Kimura T, Sakamoto T, Leveque JM, Sohmiya H, Fujita M, Ikeda S, Ando T (1996) Standardization
of ultrasonic power for sonochemical reaction. Ultrason Sonochem 3:157–161
Koda S, Kimura T, Kondo T, Mitome H (2003) A standard method to calibrate sonochemical
efficiency of an individual reaction system. Ultrason Sonochem 10:149–156
Leighton TG (1994) The acoustic bubble. Academic Press, London
Lepoint T, Lepoint-Mullié F (1998) Theoretical bases. In: Luche JL (ed) Synthetic organic sonochemistry. Chap. 1, pp 1–5
Lida Y, Yasui K, Tuziuti T, Sivakumar M (2005) Sonochemistry and its dosimetry. Microchem J
80:159–164
Mason TJ, Lorimer JP (2002) The uses of power ultrasound in chemistry and processing. WileyVCH Verlag, Weinheim
Mason TJ, Lorimer JP, Bates DM, Zhao Y (1994) Dosimetry in Sonochemistry: the use of aqueous
terephtalate ion as a fluorescence monitor. Ultrason Sonochem 1:91–95
15
tion of particles sizes, enhanced mass transfer, emulsification, harsh mixing, etc.
responsible for enhanced kinetics without changing the nature of the mechanistic
pathway.
• Type III: Sonochemical reactions occurring in heterogeneous phase but able also
to follow an S.E.T mechanism. These reactions possess an ambivalent character
as chemical and physical effects of ultrasound may jointly impact favourably the
issue of a reaction. It is usually very troublesome to determine which effect is in
particular responsible and why. The most striking example is probably the first
known example of ‘sonochemical switching’ found in 1984 by T. Ando et al. In
that chemical system, resulting products obtained under mechanical stirring and
ultrasonic irradiation are different. The authors stated that the use of ‘ultrasound
completely switched the reaction pathway from electrophilic aromatic substitution
to an aliphatic nucleophilic substitution’.
References
Al-Juboori RA, Yusaf T, Bowtell L, Aravinthan V (2014) Energy characterisation of ultrasonic
systems for industrial processes. Ultrasonics 57:18–30
Briquard P (1983) Les Ultrasons. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris
Chatel G (2016) Acoustic cavitation. In: Chatel G (ed) Sonochemistry: new opportunities for green
chemistry. Chap. 2, pp 13–15
De La Rochebrochard S, Suptil J, Blais JF, Naffrechoux E (2012) Sonochemical efficiency dependence on liquid height and frequency in an improved sonochemical reactor. Ultrason Sonochem
19:280–285
Dezhkunov NV, Fedorinchick MP, Kotukhov AV (2013) Device for the HIFU cavitation activity
monitoring. In: 13th Meeting of the European Society of Sonochemistry, 1–5 July, Lviv, Ukraine
Gogate PR, Pandit AB (2005) A review and assessment of hydrodynamic cavitation as a technology
for the future. Ultrason Sonochem 12:21–27
Hatanaka S, Yasui K, Tuziuti T, Mitome H (2000) Difference in threshold between sono- and
sonochemical luminescence. Jpn J Appl Phys 39(2962):2966
Hirano K, Kobayashi T (2016) Coumarin fluorimetry to quantitatively detectable OH radicals in
ultrasound aqueous medium. Ultrason Sonochem 30:18–27
Kimura T, Sakamoto T, Leveque JM, Sohmiya H, Fujita M, Ikeda S, Ando T (1996) Standardization
of ultrasonic power for sonochemical reaction. Ultrason Sonochem 3:157–161
Koda S, Kimura T, Kondo T, Mitome H (2003) A standard method to calibrate sonochemical
efficiency of an individual reaction system. Ultrason Sonochem 10:149–156
Leighton TG (1994) The acoustic bubble. Academic Press, London
Lepoint T, Lepoint-Mullié F (1998) Theoretical bases. In: Luche JL (ed) Synthetic organic sonochemistry. Chap. 1, pp 1–5
Lida Y, Yasui K, Tuziuti T, Sivakumar M (2005) Sonochemistry and its dosimetry. Microchem J
80:159–164
Mason TJ, Lorimer JP (2002) The uses of power ultrasound in chemistry and processing. WileyVCH Verlag, Weinheim
Mason TJ, Lorimer JP, Bates DM, Zhao Y (1994) Dosimetry in Sonochemistry: the use of aqueous
terephtalate ion as a fluorescence monitor. Ultrason Sonochem 1:91–95