Letter
6 / 15 March 2021 / Optics Letters 1409
Single-shot interferometric measurement of
cavitation bubble dynamics
Bryce G. Wilson,1 Zhenkun Fan,1 Rahul Sreedasyam,2 Elliot L. Botvinick,2,3
Vasan Venugopalan1,2,3, *
1
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Irvine, California 92697-2580, USA
2
Department of Biomedical Engineering University of California, Irvine, California 92697-2715, USA
3
Beckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic, University of California, 1002 Health Sciences Rd. E, Irvine, California 92697-3010, USA
*Corresponding author: vvenugop@uci.edu
Received 8 December 2020; revised 5 February 2021; accepted 12 February 2021; posted 16 February 2021 (Doc. ID 416923);
published 11 March 2021
We demonstrate an interferometric method to provide
direct, single-shot measurements of cavitation bubble
dynamics with nanoscale spatial and temporal resolution
with results that closely match theoretical predictions.
Implementation of this method reduces the need for expen-
sive and complex ultra-high speed camera systems for the
measurement of single cavitation events. This method
can capture dynamics over large time intervals with sub-
nanosecond temporal resolution and spatial precision
surpassing the optical diffraction limit. We expect this
method to have broad utility for examination of cavitation
bubble dynamics, as well as for metrology applications
such as optorheological materials characterization. This
method provides an accurate approach for precise mea-
surement of cavitation bubble dynamics suitable for
metrology applications such as optorheological materi-
als characterization. © 2021 Optical Society of America under
the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement
https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.416923
Precise measurement of cavitation dynamics is relevant to
phenomena as diverse as sonoluminescence, sonochemistry,
molecular transport, fluidic mixing, and light–tissue inter-
actions [1–5]. These phenomena have been exploited in
numerous applications, including ultrasonic cleaning [6],
microfluidic mixing [7] and pumping [8], tissue ablation
[5], drug delivery [9,10], ocular surgery [11], microrheol-
ogy [12,13], screening of cellular mechanosignaling [14,15],
and measurement of mechanical properties of soft materials
[13,16,17].
Empirical studies providing detailed measurement of
cavitation bubble dynamics most often utilize high-speed
photographic methods [18,19]. Such measurements are critical
to understanding complex fluidic processes, assessing compu-
tational fluid dynamics models, and optimizing applications
that utilize cavitation bubbles [20]. While the capabilities of
high-speed photographic and holographic methods have had
advanced formidably in recent years, with systems capable
of imaging rates as large as 1 trillion frames/second [21–24],
significant limitations remain, including the total number of
0146-9592/21/061409-04 Journal © 2021 Optical Society of America
Vol. 46, No.
AND
frames available, diffraction-limited spatial resolution, and
significant expense and complexity. These limitations place
these high-speed photographic and holographic methods out
of the reach of most researchers in terms of cost and/or needed
expertise.
On the other hand, time-resolved photography, achieved
through combining individual time-gated images from inde-
pendent cavitation events, has been used by a larger number
of investigators [7,13,25–29]. This approach has enabled the
reconstruction of complex bubble dynamics over long time
intervals with high temporal resolution. However, this approach
provides an “average” view of the phenomena, since the data
acquisition utilizes images from different events. This effectively
blinds the investigator to important factors that may cause
shot-to-shot variability such as the stochastic nature of laser-
induced plasma formation and the potential effects of medium
heterogeneity and/or impurities [30,31].
As an alternative, investigators have developed optical
techniques utilizing probe deflection or spatial transmittance
modulation to determine cavitation bubble dynamics [32–
35]. However, these techniques appear to be best suited to
probe millimeter scale sized bubbles and generally lack the
precision necessary to allow for detailed analysis. Moreover, to
obtain quantitative bubble dynamics, these techniques require
calibration and/or pairing with photography.
In this Letter, we present a new method for precise mea-
surement of cavitation bubble dynamics with nanoscale
temporal resolution and spatial precision. This method uti-
lizes a heterodyne interferometer in a modified Mach–Zehnder
configuration [36,37] as shown in Fig. 1. This configuration was
selected due to its known sensitivity to small phase differences
between the reference and sample arm produced by localized
changes in the refractive index such as those produced by a
transient cavitation bubble [38].
To demonstrate its capabilities, we formed cavitation bubbles
using laser-induced plasma generation by irradiation using a
single 500 ps duration pulse emitted by a frequency-doubled
Nd:YAG laser (λ = 532 nm, Teem Photonics PNG-M03012)
laser with pulse energies of 2.5–20 µJ. The laser beam output
was expanded and delivered to a water-filled cuvette using a 40x,
 1410 Vol. 46, No. 6 / 15 March 2021 / Optics Letters
Fig. 1. Diagram of the Mach–Zehnder interferometric system. M1-
M5 are 25 mm silver mirrors used to direct both the pump (Nd:YAG)
and interferometer probe (HeNe) beams. A linear polarizer (POL) is
used to adjust the power of the HeNe laser beam. 50 mm convex lenses
L1 & L2 are used to direct the interferometer probe beam through the
bubble. 10 mm convex lenses L3 & L4 are used to focus the combined
interferometer beams onto the Si-PIN diodes P1 and P2 whose aper-
tures are shielded using LP filters. 50 mm concave (L5) and 125 mm
convex (L6) lenses are used to expand and recollimate the Nd:YAG
pump beam.
0.8 numerical aperture water immersion microscope objective
(OBJ, Leica HCX APO L 40 × /0.80 W U-V-I). The interfer-
ometer was constructed utilizing a polarized continuous wave
helium–neon laser (He–Ne, λ = 632.8 nm, 12 mW, Newport
Optics, R-30993). The separate arms of the interferometer are
formed using a 110 MHz acousto-optic modulator (AOM,
IntraAction, Inc., ATM-1101A1) such that the first-order
frequency-shifted beam from the AOM serves as the reference
arm, and the unshifted beam serves as the sample arm. The use
of the AOM to introduce optical frequencies offset by 110 MHz
into the two paths of the interferometer enables the use of opti-
cal heterodyne detection to determine the phase difference
between the two arms of the interferometer [39]. The sample
arm is directed through the cuvette perpendicular so that it
passes through the center of the bubble. The two beams are
recombined using a non-polarizing 50/50 beam splitting cube
(BSC, Thorlabs BS013). Dual-balanced detection [40] is per-
formed using two 1 GHz bandwidth Si-PIN photodiodes (P1 &
Fig. 2. Measured photodiode signal (blue) and the AOM reference driving signal (orange) from oscilloscope following initiation of a cavitation
bubble using a 20 µJ pulse energy. Iint (blue) and Iaom (orange) are shown in segments corresponding to the (a) beginning, (b) middle, and (c) end of
a 175 µm diameter bubble created by a 20 µJ laser pulse. The AOM reference signal represents the heterodyne interferometer signal in the absence of
a bubble and whose frequency is identical to the photodiode signal prior to the formation of the bubble. Once bubble formation occurs, the detected
intensity of the photodiode signal is altered due to light scattering, and the phase is altered due to the varying optical path lengths. The red arrow on
the horizontal axis indicates the time of laser pulse delivery to the sample.
Letter
P2, S5973 Hamamatsu). The photodiode apertures are shielded
by long-pass filters (LP) [FGL590M, ThorLabs] to reject stray
light at wavelengths <590 nm that may emanate from the
Nd:YAG laser or plasma luminescence from reaching the pho-
todiodes. The photodiode detection circuit is enclosed in a steel
Faraday cage to reduce ambient electrical noise. The photodiode
output signal is amplified using a broadband low-noise ampli-
fier (AMP, Mini-Circuits ZFL-500LN), digitized by a 2 GHz
bandwidth oscilloscope (OSC, LeCroy WaveRunner 6200 A) at
a 5GS/s sampling rate, and processed using MATLAB’s Hilbert
transform function. Each measurement is initiated using a pulse
generator (Stanford Research Systems DG535) to externally
trigger the oscilloscope and the emission of a single pulse from
the Nd:YAG laser.
Prior to bubble formation, the detected interferometer signal
consists of a sinusoidal oscillation at the 110 MHz modulation
frequency. The replacement of water with water vapor associ-
ated with bubble formation changes the optical path length of
the sample arm, as the beam passes through the growing and
collapsing vapor cavity. This dynamic change in optical path
length is detected by the photodiodes. Prototypical waveforms
of both the AOM reference and detected interferometer signals
are shown in Fig. 2.
The phase difference between the reference and sample arms
is directly proportional to the cavitation bubble size. Figure 3
illustrates the results of the Hilbert transform in which both
the phase of the AOM signal, which is equivalent to the phase
of the interferometer reference beam, ϕref , and the phase of the
detected interferometer signal, ϕint , are plotted versus time.
The phase difference between these two signals is shown by
ϕbub . Prior to applying the Hibert transform, the raw interfer-
ometer signal is processed using notch filters to exclude 314
and 629 MHz frequency peaks that correspond to the mode
hopping frequency of our He–Ne laser. Additionally, a bandpass
filter between 2.9 and 220 MHz is used to filter out electri-
cal noise above and below the relevant frequency range of the
system.
The time-resolved bubble radius R B (t) is obtained from the
optical phase ϕbub (t) corresponding to the dynamic optical path
length difference between the reference and sample arms intro-
duced by the bubble. This leads to the following relationship
between the time-resolved bubble radius R B (t) and the optical
phase introduced by the bubble ϕbub (t) [38]:
 Letter
150
bub
5 Interferometer
ref
int
4 140
100
Phase [krad/2
Phase [rad/2
3
50 2 80
1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time [µs]
Fig. 3. Measured ϕref and ϕint corresponding to the formation of a
141.3 µm diameter cavitation bubble using a 10 µJ laser pulse. ϕbub is
the phase difference between the reference and interferometer signals.
λϕbub (t)
R B (t) = , (1)
4π(n G − n W )
where λ is the wavelength of the probe beam, and n G and n W are
the refractive indices of the gas within the bubble and surround-
ing water, respectively.
Once the bubble is initiated and growing in size, the instanta-
neous frequency of the interferometer signal Iint falls below the
110 MHz heterodyne frequency, since the optical path length
in the sample arm is decreasing with time. Conversely, once the
bubble reaches its maximum size and begins to collapse, the
instantaneous frequency of the interferometer signal Iint rises
above a 110 MHz heterodyne signal. The detection limit of our
bubble measurement is dependent on the root-mean-square
(RMS) phase noise associated with the baseline interferometer
signal without bubble formation. This phase noise amounts to
0.1 radians and corresponds to a detection limit of 15 nm.
To assess the measurement accuracy of the interferometer, we
compare the bubble dynamics measurements with predictions
provided by the Rayleigh–Plesset model [41], which has been
demonstrated to provide accurate predictions for the cavitation
bubble dynamics in this case [13,27]:
"  #
d 2R B 3 dR B 2

2σ 4µ dR B
ρ RB + = p B − p∞ − − ,
dt2 2 dt RB RB dt
(2)
where R B (t) represents the time-resolved bubble radius, µ rep-
resents the viscosity of water, ρ represents the density of water,
and σ represents the surface tension at water/vapor interface,
with p B and p ∞ representing the pressure inside the bubble and
surrounding liquid, respectively. Figure 4 shows excellent agree-
ment between the predictions made by the Rayleigh–Plesset
model and the interferometric measurement. As a point of com-
parison, we also provide bubble dynamics data obtained under
similar conditions obtained by taking a single bubble image at
different time points using time-resolved photography [13,27].
A comparison of the two data sets clearly illustrates the
increased measurement uncertainty that is incurred when
determining the bubble dynamics using time-resolved images
obtained using multiple independent trials. Specifically, typical
measurement uncertainties for cavitation bubbles of ∼140 µm
Vol. 46, No. 6 / 15 March 2021 / Optics Letters 1411
180 Camera
160
Rayleigh–Plesset
Bubble Radius [µm]
120
100
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time [µs]
Fig. 4. Time-resolved bubble dynamics for bubbles formed using
pulse energies of 2.5, 10, and 20 µJ resulting in maximum bubble radii
of 77, 136, and 172 µm, respectively, are shown with theoretical bub-
ble radius predicted by the Rayleigh–Plesset model. In the case of 10 µJ
pulse energy, we also show data acquired using images captured from
separate events using an intensified CCD camera (Stanford Computer
Optics, 4Picos).
maximum radius can range from ±3 µm at times when the
bubble is changing size slowly, to a maximum bubble radius of
±40 µm during bubble collapse [27,29]. This large variation
is primarily due to shot-to-shot variability in the phenomena.
However, we do find that our interferometric method has dif-
ficulty unwrapping the phase during the final stages of bubble
collapse once the velocity of the bubble wall exceeds approx-
imately 84–94 m/s. This collapse velocity corresponds to a
heterodyne detection frequency in excess of 154–159 MHz.
Interestingly, we have an unidentified source of ambient elec-
tronic noise located at 156 MHz. This leads us to believe that
our difficulty in resolving the bubble collapse is not intrinsic to
our overall approach, but may instead be resolved through better
electrical isolation or by using an AOM operating at a lower
modulation frequency.
In summary, we have demonstrated an accurate interfero-
metric method for obtaining the complete cavitation bubble
dynamics from a single cavitation event with 15 nm radial preci-
sion and sub-nanosecond temporal resolution. This approach is
more accurate, less costly, and simpler to operate as compared to
fast-frame photographic and holographic methods. Moreover,
unlike probe beam methods, our method requires no calibration
to obtain quantitative measurements. This approach allows for
capturing of the full cavitation bubble dynamics extending over
tens of microseconds while retaining sub-nanosecond temporal
resolution. We anticipate these capabilities will be of broad
utility for examination of cavitation bubble dynamics, as well
as for metrology applications such as optorheological materials
characterization.
Funding. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General
Medical Sciences (R01 GM129426); National Science Foundation (Graduate
Research Fellowship Program (BGW)).
Acknowledgment. B. G. Wilson acknowledges support of a National
Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship.
 1412 Vol. 46, No. 6 / 15 March 2021 / Optics Letters
Disclosures. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. C. D. Ohl, T. Kurz, R. Geisler, O. Lindau, and W. Lauterborn, Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. London A 357, 269 (1999).
2. Y. T. Didenko, W. B. McNamara, III, and K. S. Suslick, Phys. Rev. Lett.
84, 777 (2000).
3. B. Niemczewski, Ultrason. Sonochem. 14, 13 (2007).
4. S. Paliwal and S. Mitragotri, Expert Opin. Drug Delivery 3, 713 (2006).
5. A. Vogel and V. Venugopalan, Chem. Rev. 103, 577 (2003).
6. N. S. M. Yusof, B. Babgi, Y. Alghamdi, M. Aksu, J. Madhavan, and M.
Ashokkumar, Ultrason. Sonochem. 29, 568 (2016).
7. A. N. Hellman, K. R. Rau, H. H. Yoon, S. Bae, J. F. Palmer, K. S.
Phillips, N. L. Allbritton, and V. Venugopalan, Anal. Chem. 79, 4484
(2007).
8. R. Dijkink and C.-D. Ohl, Lab Chip 8, 1676 (2008).
9. C. C. Coussios and R. A. Roy, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40, 395 (2008).
10. A. N. Hellman, K. R. Rau, H. H. Yoon, and V. Venugopalan, J.
Biophotonics 1, 24 (2008).
11. A. Vogel, W. Hentschel, J. Holzfuss, and W. Lauterborn,
Ophthalmology 93, 1259 (1986).
12. J. B. Estrada, C. Barajas, D. L. Henann, E. Johnsen, and C. Franck, J.
Mech. Phys. Solids 112, 291 (2018).
13. J. C. Luo, H. Ching, B. G. Wilson, A. Mohraz, E. L. Botvinick, and V.
Venugopalan, Sci. Rep. 10, 13144 (2020).
14. J. L. Compton, J. C. Luo, H. Ma, E. L. Botvinick, and V. Venugopalan,
Nat. Photonics 8, 710 (2014).
15. J. C. Luo, E. L. Botvinick, and V. Venugopalan, Nat. Photonics 9, 624
(2015).
16. P. A. Quinto-Su, C. Kuss, P. R. Preiser, and C.-D. Ohl, Lab Chip 11,
672 (2011).
17. C. W. Barney, C. E. Dougan, K. R. McLeod, A. Kazemi-Moridani, Y.
Zheng, Z. Ye, S. Tiwari, I. Sacligil, R. A. Riggleman, S. Cai, J.-H. Lee,
S. R. Peyton, G. N. Tew, and A. J. Crosby, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
117, 9157 (2020).
18. W. Lauterborn and W. Hentschel, Ultrasonics 23, 260 (1985).
19. W. Lauterborn and W. Hentschel, Ultrasonics 24, 59 (1986).
20. W. Lauterborn, T. Kurz, R. Mettin, and C.-D. Ohl, Adv. Chem. Phys.
110, 295 (1999).
Letter
21. C.-D. Ohl, A. Philipp, and W. Lauterborn, Ann. Phys. 507, 26
(1995).
22. W. Lauterborn and T. Kurz, The Micro-World Observed by Ultra High-
Speed Cameras, K. Tsuji, ed. (Springer, 2018), pp. 19–47.
23. T. Kim, J. Liang, L. Zhu, and L. V. Wang, Sci. Adv. 6, eaa6200 (2020).
24. V. Agrež, T. Požar, and R. Petkovšek, Opt. Lett. 45, 1547 (2020).
25. A. Vogel, S. Busch, and U. Parlitz, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100, 148
(1996).
26. K. R. Rau, A. Guerra, A. Vogel, and V. Venugopalan, Appl. Phys. Lett.
84, 2940 (2004).
27. K. R. Rau, P. A. Quinto-Su, A. N. Hellman, and V. Venugopalan,
Biophys. J. 91, 317 (2006).
28. P. A. Quinto-Su, H. H. Lai, H. H. Yoon, C. E. Sims, N. L. Allbritton, and
V. Venugopalan, Lab Chip 8, 408 (2008).
29. J. L. Compton, A. N. Hellman, and V. Venugopalan, Biophys. J. 105,
2221 (2013).
30. N. Linz, S. Freidank, X. X. Liang, H. Vogelmann, T. Trickl, and A. Vogel,
Phys. Rev. B 91, 134114 (2015).
31. Y. Tian, B. Xue, J. Song, Y. Lu, and R. Zheng, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109,
061104 (2016).
32. P. Gregorčič and J. Možina, Meas. Sci. Technol. 18, 2972 (2007).
33. P. Gregorčič, J. Možina, and G. Močnik, Appl. Phys. A 93, 901
(2008).
34. R. Petkovšek and P. Gregorčič, J. Appl. Phys. 102, 044909 (2007).
35. L. F. Devia-Cruz, S. Camacho-López, V. R. Cortés, V. Ramos-Muñiz,
F. G. Pérez-Gutiérrez, and G. Aguilar, Appl. Opt. 54, 10432 (2015).
36. A. D. Yablon, N. S. Nishioka, B. B. Mikić, and V. Venugopalan, Appl.
Opt. 38, 1259 (1999).
37. S. A. Carp, A. Guerra, III, S. Q. Duque, Jr., and V. Venugopalan, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 85, 5772 (2004).
38. H. Zappe, Fundamentals of Micro-Optics (Cambridge University,
2010).
39. P. Hariharan, Basics of Interferometry (Elsevier, 2010).
40. G. Abbas, V. Chan, and T. Yee, J. Lightwave Technol. 3, 1110 (1985).
41. C. E. Brennan, Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics (Oxford University,
1995).