Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 5 (1999) 157–162

Influence of different factors on the output power transferred into

medium by ultrasound
Javier Raso, Pilar Mañas, Rafael Pagán, Francisco J. Sala *
Tecnologı́a de los Alimentos, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

Received 18 May 1998

Abstract

The influence of several factors (amplitude of ultrasonic waves, external static pressure, temperature and viscosity of medium)
acting, either individually or in combination, on the amount of power transferred to a liquid medium during ultrasonication
(power output) was measured by calorimetry. At constant amplitude (150 mm) and pressure (200 kPa), the power output decreased
as the temperature was raised. The effect of temperature could be compensated by increasing pressure. The magnitude of the
increase in power output due to raising the pressure depended on the pressure range and the treatment temperature. At all
temperatures and pressures studied, the power output increased exponentially when the amplitude was increased linearly. The
magnitude of this power output did not depend on the temperature or pressure of treatment. At 40°C the magnitude of the
increase in power output due to increasing the pressure was not influenced by the amplitude of sonic waves. The power output
increased as the viscosity of the medium was increased. The magnitude of this effect did not depend on the amplitude but on the
static pressure. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Manosonication; Manothermosonication; Power output; Pressure; Viscosity

1. Introduction ultrasound increases drastically when combined with

Both low-intensity and high-intensity ultrasound are
increasingly being used in the food industry [1–5]. Low-
intensity ultrasound technology is a non-destructive
technique that can be used in analytical methods to
provide information on the physicochemical properties
of the product such as composition, phase transitions,
particle size etc., or to monitor on line a wide variety
of processes such as the build-up of fouling in heat
exchangers and pipework of UHT processing plants,
flow rate measurements, etc.
High-intensity ultrasound is used for emulsion gener-
ation, dispersion of aggregated materials, modification
and control of crystallisation processes, and to enhance
drying, filtration, etc. [5]. The inactivation of microorga-
nisms by high-intensity ultrasound was first reported by
Harvey and Loomis [6 ] in 1929. However, its low lethal
effect has prevented its use as a new sterilization
procedure.
Recent research work has shown that the effect of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-76-761581; fax: +34-76-761612;
e-mail: pacosala@posta.unizar.es.
heat and applied under pressure [7]. This reopens the
possibility of profiting from the effect of ultrasound for
the development of new preservation procedures.
The main mechanism responsible for the inactivation
of microorganisms and enzymes by ultrasound is
thought to be cavitation. Cavitation is the formation,
growth and sudden collapse of bubbles in liquids. The
inactivating effect of ultrasound on microorganisms and
enzymes is considered to be due either to the very high
temperatures and pressures that, according to theoretical
calculations [8], are generated during cavitation or to
free radical formation.
The effects of high-intensity ultrasound depend on
many variables. Among the most important variables
are the reaction medium characteristics (viscosity, sur-
face tension, vapour pressure, nature and concentration
or the dissolved gas, presence of solid particles), treat-
ment parameters (pressure and temperature), ultrasonic
generator performance (frequency, power input) and
size and geometry of treatment vessel [9]. The differences
in treatment parameters and methodologies used by
authors to measure the intensity of sonic treatments
makes it very difficult to compare data on the effect of
ultrasound reported in literature.

1350-4177/99/$ – see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S1 3 5 0 -4 1 7 7 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 04 2 - X
158 J. Raso et al. / Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 5 (1999) 157-162
Ultrasound generators transform electrical energy
into ultrasonic energy, which is a mechanical energy.
The ultrasonic power is usually expressed as the electrical
input or output power to or from the ultrasound genera-
tor. The efficiency of the energy transformation depends
not only on the equipment itself, but also on ultrasonica-
tion conditions. Therefore, the amount of acoustic
energy delivered into the liquid medium cannot be
measured solely by measuring the amount of electrical
energy expended to produce the mechanical vibration.
As all the ultrasonic energy transferred to a liquid is
eventually converted into heat [9], the power transferred
to the treatment medium can be measured calorimetri-
cally. Calorimetry power output is measured by record-
ing heat generated into the liquid by recording the
increase in temperature with time. These methods are
very reliable and have been used for this purpose by
different authors [10–12].
Reported data [11,12] indicate that the power output
attained in the medium increases with the amplitude of
ultrasonic waves and the hydrostatic pressure, but
decreases with increasing temperature. The combined
effect of these factors on the power is still unknown.
An apparatus was designed and constructed to study
the inactivating effect on microorganisms and enzymes
of heat, ultrasound, ultrasound under pressure (manoso-
nication; MS) and combined and simultaneous heat and
MS treatments (manothermosonication; MTS) under
precise control of temperature (up to 150±0.2°C ),
pressure (up to 1000±30 kPa) and ultrasonication
parameters (frequency and amplitude) [13].
To determine and compare the power output attained
in the medium with these treatments, a prior investiga-
tion was carried out on the performance of this instru-
ment under different operational conditions.
This investigation reports the influence of the ampli-
tude of ultrasonic waves, external static pressure, tem-
perature and viscosity of the liquid, either acting by
themselves or in combination, on the amount of power
transferred to liquid during sonication.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Apparatus
The apparatus used in this investigation was a modi-
fied unit of the Thermoresistometer TR-SC [13]. It
consisted of a stainless steel main vessel (650 ml capac-
ity), connected to a pressure and vacuum source (water
pump), having an agitation shaft and a 1200 W heating
element. Screwed onto the bottom cap of this vessel was
a treatment chamber (23 ml ), surrounded by a cooling
coil. This chamber was pressurised through two one-
way valves on its top. During experiments, its content
was agitated by an agitation shaft coupled to the agita-
tion shaft of the main vessel. Three hermetic ports
connected the chamber to a manometer, a temperature
recorder and an automatic sample injection device. The
chamber was connected to a capillary sampling tube
that had a solenoid sampling valve activated by a timer.
The bottom of the chamber was reached by the tip
of the sonication horn of a 20 kHz variable amplitude
ultrasound generator (Branson Ultrasonics, Dambury,
CT, USA)
The temperature during experiments was kept con-
stant by dissipating the heat generated by ultrasound
by circulating cold water through the cooling coil.
2.2. Measurement of power output
During experiments the temperature of the liquid
being ultrasonicated was recorded versus time with the
Pt 100 (Crison Instrument, Barcelona, Spain) of the
treatment chamber connected to a temperature recorder
(Pharmacia, Upsala, Sweden). The temperature rise was
estimated from the slope of the straight portion of the
line that was obtained, in all cases, during the first
seconds of the experiment. Power output was then
calculated using the equation:
dT
Power= c M
dt p
where c is the heat capacity of the solvent (in
p
J kg−1 K ) and M is the mass of solvent used (in
kg−1).
The solvent used in all experiments was distilled
water. Two media of different viscosities were prepared
by dissolving glycerol in distilled water to concentrations
of 84 and 92%, which corresponded to absolute viscosi-
ties at 20°C of 84.3 and 384.5 cP respectively.
Before starting any experiment the contents of the
treatment chamber were thermostated at the starting
temperature. During experiments the individual or com-
bined influence on power output of different amplitudes
of sonication (from 83 to 150 mm), relative pressures
(from 0 to 700 kPa), temperatures (from 15 to 130°C )
and viscosities (up to 384.5 cP) was estimated calo-
rimetrically.
3. Results and discussion
The methods for the estimation of ultrasonic energy
have been reviewed by several authors [14–16 ]. Among
the existing methods, thermal methods are currently the
most commonly used. In calorimetric methods it is
assumed that practically all of the mechanical energy of
ultrasound is transformed into heat. Thus the estimation
of output can be carried out calorimetrically [9].
In an ideal system the treatment vessel should be
 J. Raso et al. / Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 5 (1999) 157-162
lagged to prevent heat loss to the environment. During
our experiments the temperature recordings of the first
seconds of treatment yielded a straight line. This showed
that, at this stage, the heat exchange between the treat-
ment chamber and the main vessel was negligible.
Similar results were obtained by Kimura et al. [12] who
concluded that, in their reactor, an adiabatic system was
not required to measure power output calorimetrically.
The repeatability of power output values estimated
using this method in this investigation was always
satisfactory. Preliminary experiments showed that the
variation coefficients of five consecutive measurements
were always lower than 5%.
3.1. Effect of temperature
The starting temperature of the medium had a marked
influence on the power output. In Fig. 1 the influence
of the starting temperature on power output at atmo-
spheric pressure and at 200 kPa is shown. As seen in
this figure, at both pressures, the power output of
ultrasonic waves of 150 mm decreased as the starting
temperature was raised. At ambient pressure, in the
range 20–70°C, the power output was hardly affected.
However, at temperatures higher than 70°C it decreased
drastically and at 100°C no increase was detected. When
this treatment medium was pressurized at 200 kPa, the
influence of starting temperature showed the same
pattern. However, in this case, the decrease in power
output occurred at 100°C, becoming zero at 135°C. At
both pressures, the temperature rise of the medium
stopped when its vapour pressure became equal to the
external hydrostatic pressure being applied.
The decrease, at ambient pressure, of the effect of
ultrasound with increasing temperature has also been
observed with the eroding capacity of different materials
by ultrasound [17], sonochemical reactions [18] and
inactivation of microorganisms [19]. This lower effect
of ultrasound at higher temperatures has been attributed
Fig. 1. Influence of initial temperature on the ultrasonic (20 kHz,
150 mm) output power at 0 (&) and 200 kPa ($).
159
to the cushioning effect of vapour contained inside the
bubble during cavitation. Our results showed that at
higher temperatures the power output decreased, but
this effect could be compensated by increasing the static
pressure.
Fig. 2 shows the external pressure needed to keep the
power output (100 W ) constant at different temper-
atures in the range 20–140°C. The vapour pressure of
water in the range of 0–140°C has been also plotted to
illustrate the influence of static pressure. By keeping a
static overpressure of 220 kPa over the water vapour
pressure corresponding to each temperature a constant
100 W power output could be obtained at different
treatment temperatures.
Our results disagree with those of Vercet et al. [20]
who observed that despite keeping the overpressure
constant the · production rate by ultrasound decreased
with temperature.
3.2. Effect of static pressure
Static pressure is another important variable influ-
encing power output. Fig. 3 shows the influence of static
pressure on the power output of a 150 mm amplitude
ultrasonication treatment at different temperatures (40,
70 and 120°C ). As shown by this figure, any increase in
hydrostatic pressure caused an increase in power output.
However, the magnitude of this increase depended on
the pressure range and treatment temperature. It became
smaller the higher the pressure in the system. At the
highest pressures used it was almost zero. These results
indicate that, although power output can be increased
by increasing static pressure, this increase has a limit.
This limit depends on the treatment temperature.
The influence of static pressure on the effect of
ultrasound has also been observed by other authors
[13,21]. According to these authors when the hydrostatic
Fig. 2. External pressure needed at different temperatures to get a con-
stant power output of 100 W into the treatment chamber.
Ultrasonication conditions: 20 kHz, 150 mm; water vapour pressure
curve (—).
160 J. Raso et al. / Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 5 (1999) 157-162
Fig. 3. Influence of static pressure on the ultrasonic (20 kHz, 150 mm)
output power at 40 (%), 70 (#) and 120°C (6).
pressure was increased, the ultrasound effects also
increased until they reached a maximum after which
they became constant or even decreased. According to
theoretical considerations static pressure would shorten
the constant time required for bubble collapse and
increase the intensity of the implosion [17]. However,
at too high static pressures the ultrasonic field would be
incapable of overcoming the combined forces of the
overpressure and cohesive forces of liquid molecules
[22]. Perhaps this could explain why, once a given
pressure had been reached, further increments in static
pressure failed to increase power output.
3.3. Effect of amplitude
The power output attained at 40°C at different ampli-
tudes and pressures is shown in Fig. 4. The amplitude
was found to have a major effect. In the range of
pressures studied, when the amplitude was increased the
power output increased exponentially. At all pressures
tried any 67 mm increment in amplitude increased the
output twofold.
Fig. 4. Influence of amplitude on the ultrasonic (20 kHz, 40°C ) output
power at 0 (&), 300 (+) and 600 kPa ($).
Fig. 5 shows the influence of amplitude on power
output attained at 300 kPa but at different temperatures.
As seen in this figure, under all pressures tried, there
was also an exponential relationship between the power
output and amplitude of ultrasonic waves. Also, any
63 mm increment in amplitude increased power output
twofold. Regression equations and correlation coeffi-
cients of lines plotted in Figs. 4 and 5 are included in
Table 1. No statistically significant differences ( p<0.05)
were detected among the slopes of these five lines.
Vercet et al. [20] also observed that by increasing
amplitude the production of · increased. However, the
effect of amplitude on · production was much smaller
and the relationship they reported between amplitude
and · production was not an exponential but a linear
one. However, it was not clear whether this was really
a linear relationship because no significant difference
was found between correlation coefficients considering
either a linear or exponential relationship (personal
communication).
Hobbs [21] also found an exponential relationship
between amplitude and erosion rate of several materials
at ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure. We
found the same relationship between amplitude and
death rate of Yersinia enterocolitica at 40°C and 200 kPa
[13]. The increase of the ultrasound effects by increasing
amplitude has been related to the increase of the effective
size of the zone of liquid undergoing cavitation and the
range of sizes of bubble that undergo cavitation at
higher amplitudes [8]. However, some authors have
observed that the rates of sonochemical reactions
increased with amplitude only within an amplitude
range. Above that range the reaction rate decreased.
This behaviour has been explained by the increase in
the density of bubbles undergoing cavitation near the
radiating surface that would hamper the transmission
of the ultrasonic energy into the liquid [22]. We did not
observe with our instrument, in the range of amplitudes
Fig. 5. Influence of amplitude on the ultrasonic (20 kHz, 300 kPa)
output power at 40 (&), 70 ($) and 120°C (+).
 J. Raso et al. / Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 5 (1999) 157-162
Table 1
Influence of amplitude on the ultrasonic output power at different temperatures and pressures
Temperature (°C ) Pressure (kPa) Regression equationa
40 300 Log P=0.0040A+1.49
70 300 Log P=0.0047A+1.36
120 300 Log P=0.0048A+1.03
40 0 Log P=0.0051A+0.81
40 600 Log P=0.0042A+1.64
a P=power ( W ); A=amplitude (mm).
and pressures used in this work, any loss of the efficiency
of ultrasonic energy transmission.
According to our data the increase in power output
when amplitude was increased was independent of pres-
sure and treatment temperature ( Table 1).
The relationship between power output and pressure
at different amplitudes and 40°C is shown in Fig. 6. At
any amplitude studied the magnitude of the increase in
power output due to any given increment in external
pressure was the same. These increments in power
output became smaller as the pressure was increased,
being almost zero at the highest pressures tried. This
was so perhaps because at such high pressures, the
ultrasound was incapable of overcoming the cohesive
forces of the liquid.
As our results show the increments in power output
by increasing static pressure were independent of the
amplitude of ultrasonic waves but dependent on the
temperature of medium.
4. Effect of medium viscosity
Other variables affecting ultrasound effects are the
liquid medium properties such as surface tension, con-
centration of suspended solids and, mainly, viscosity
[23]. At higher viscosities cavitation is more difficult to
induce (i.e. a greater power input is required) and the
Fig. 6. Influence of pressure on the ultrasonic (20 kHz, 150 mm) output
power at 83 (%), 117 (#) and 150 mm (6).
161
CL 95 %− CL 95%+ r2
0.0029 0.0051 0.98
0.0038 0.0056 0.99
0.0035 0.0061 0.98
0.0035 0.0068 0.97
0.0035 0.0049 0.99
number of cavitating bubbles per unit volume is reduced.
However, the collapse of these bubbles is much more
violent [9].
In Fig. 7 the viscosity of liquid ultrasonicated at
ambient pressure with 83 or 150 mm of amplitude ultra-
sound is plotted versus the corresponding power output
attained. As shown by this figure, the power output
increased as the viscosity of treatment medium was
increased. However, this relationship was not linear.
Whereas from 1 to 84.17 cP the power output increased
1.6-fold, at any amplitude, from 84 to 383 cP the effect
of viscosity was almost zero.
Fig. 8 shows the power output attained, in liquid
media of different viscosities, with the same ultrasound
amplitude (150 mm), but under different pressures. As
this figure shows, the influence of viscosity depended on
the static pressure: the effect became smaller as the
pressure was raised, being almost zero at 400 kPa.
At ambient pressure, the pattern of the influence of
viscosity on power output was similar to that for
hydrostatic pressure. Whereas the first increments in
either of these variables induced the corresponding
increase in power output, further increments did not
have any effect. The effect of viscosity, as well as of
static pressure, on power output could perhaps be
explained by the inability of the ultrasonic field to
overcome the very strong cohesive forces of the liquid
at higher viscosities. No experimental data have been
Fig. 7. Influence of viscosity on the ultrasonic (20 kHz, 0 kPa, 20°C )
output power at 83 (&) and 150 mm ($).
162 J. Raso et al. / Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 5 (1999) 157-162
Fig. 8. Influence of viscosity on the ultrasonic (20 kHz, 150 mm, 20°C )
output power at 0 (&), 200 ($) and 400 kPa (+).
found in the literature with which our data on the
influence of viscosity can be compared.
As seen from our data, the influence of viscosity on
power output did not depend on amplitude, but on
external pressure.
Results obtained in this investigation have shown
that power transferred by ultrasound into a medium
(power output) depends on many variables. Our data
on the quantification of the individual or combined
influences of these variables should be very useful for
obtaining optimum and reproducible results either in
the food preservation field (inactivation of microorga-
nisms and enzymes or effect of ultrasound on food
constituents) or sonochemistry.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the CICYT (Project
ALI90-900) and by Ministerio Español de Educación y
Cultura who provided a grant to J. Raso to carry out
this investigation. Our thanks to S. Kennelly for her
collaboration in the English correction of this
manuscript.
References
[1] M.J.W. Povey, D.J. McClements, J. Food Eng. 8 (1988) 217.
[2] M.J.W. Povey, J. Food Eng. 9 (1989) 1.
[3] C. Javanaud, Ultrasonics 26 (1988) 117.
[4] J.D. McClements, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 5 (1995) 293.
[5] J.W. Povey, T.J. Mason, Ultrasound in Food Processing, Blackie,
Glasgow, 1998.
[6 ] E. Harvey, A. Loomis, J. Bacteriol. 17 (1929) 314.
[7] F.J. Sala, J. Burgos, S. Condón, P. López, J. Raso, in: G.W.
Gould ( Ed.), Effect of Heat and Ultrasounds on Microorganisms
and Enzymes, Blackie, Glasgow, 1994, p. 176.
[8] K.S. Suslick, Science 247 (1990) 1439.
[9] J. Berlan, T.J. Mason, Ultrasonics 30 (1992) 203.
[10] D. Skauen, Ultrasonics 7 (1976) 173.
[11] T.J. Mason, J.P. Lorimer, D.M. Bates, Ultrasonics 30 (1992) 40.
[12] T. Kimura, T. Sakamoto, J.M. Leveque, H. Sohmiya, M. Fujita,
S. Ikeda, T. Ando, Ultrasonic Sonochem. 3 (1996) 157.
[13] J. Raso, R. Pagán, S. Condón, F.J. Sala, Appl. Environ. Micro-
biol. 64 (1998) 465.
[14] B. Brown, J. E. Goodman, High-Intensity Ultrasonics. Industrial
Applications, Iliffe, London, 1965.
[15] E.A. Neppiras, Ultrasonics 3 (1965) 9.
[16 ] J. Berlan, T.J. Mason, Adv. Sonochem. 4 (1996) 1.
[17] G.O.H. Whillock, B.F. Harvey, Ultrasonics Sonochem. 4
(1997) 23.
[18] M.H. Entezari, P. Kruus, Ultrasonics Sonochem. 3 (1996) 19.
[19] M.L. Garcı́a, J. Burgos, B. Sanz, J.A. Ordoñez, J. Appl. Bacteriol.
67 (1989) 619.
[20] A. Vercet, P. López, J. Burgos, Ultrasonics 36 (1998) 617.
[21] J.M. Hobbs, Ultrasonics 3 (1969) 106.
[22] K.S. Suslick, in: K.S. Suslick ( Ed.), Homogeneous Sonochemis-
try, VCH, New York, 1988, p. 123.
[23] S. Berliner, Int. Biotechnol. Lab. 2 (1984) 42.