Experiments in Fluids

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 147–153 | Cite as

High-speed imaging of an ultrasound-driven bubble in contact with a wall: “Narcissus” effect and resolved acoustic streaming

  • Philippe Marmottant
  • Michel Versluis
  • Nico de Jong
  • Sascha Hilgenfeldt
  • Detlef Lohse
Research Article

Abstract

We report microscopic observations of the primary flow oscillation of an acoustically driven bubble in contact with a wall, captured with the ultra high-speed camera Brandaris 128 (Chin et al. 2003). The driving frequency is up to 200 kHz, and the imaging frequency is up to 25 MHz. The details of the bubble motion during an ultrasound cycle are thus resolved, showing a combination of two modes of oscillations: a radius oscillation and a translation oscillation, perpendicular to the wall. This motion is interpreted using the theory of acoustic images to account for the presence of the wall. We conclude that the bubble is subjected to a periodic succession of attractive and repulsive forces, exerted by its own image. Fast-framing recordings of a tracer particle embedded in the liquid around the particle are performed. They fully resolve the acoustic streaming flow induced by the bubble oscillations. This non-linear secondary flow appears as a tiny drift of the particle position cycle after cycle, on top of the primary back and forth oscillation. The high oscillation frequency accounts for a fast average particle velocity, with characteristic timescales in the millisecond range at the lengthscale of the bubble. The features of the bubble motion being resolved, we can apply the acoustic streaming theory near a wall, which provides predictions in agreement with the observed streaming velocity.

References

  1. Brennen CE (1995) Cavitation and bubble dynamics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Chin CT, Lancée C, Borsboom J, Mastik F, Frijlink M, de Jong N, Versluis M, Lohse D (2003) Brandaris 128: a digital 25 million frames per second camera with 128 highly sensitive frames. Rev Sci Instrum 74:5026–5034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Doinikov AA (2002) Viscous effects on the interaction force between two small gas bubbles in a weak acoustic field. J Acoust Soc Am 111:1602–1609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Doinikov AA, Zavtrak ST (1995) On the mutual interaction of two gas bubbles in a sound field. Phys Fluids 7:1923–1930CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. van der Geld CWM (2002) On the motion of a spherical bubble deforming near a plane wall. J Eng Math 42:91–118CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. van der Geld CWM (2004) Prediction of dynamic contact angle histories of a bubble growing at a wall. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 25:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Klibanov AL (2002) Ultrasound contrast agents: development of the field and current status. Top Curr Chem 222:73–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Leighton TG (1994) The acoustic bubble. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Longuet-Higgins MS (1997). Particle drift near an oscillating bubble. Proc Roy Soc Lond A 453:1551–1568CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Longuet-Higgins MS (1998) Viscous streaming from an oscillating spherical bubble. Proc R Soc Lond A 454:725–742MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Magnaudet J (2003) Small inertial effects on a spherical bubble, drop or particle moving near a wall in a time-dependent linear flow. J Fluid Mech 485:115–142CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Magnaudet J, Eames I (2000) The motion of high-Reynolds-number bubbles in inhomogenenous flows. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 32:659–708CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Magnaudet J, Legendre D (1998) The viscous drag force on a spherical bubble with time-dependent radius. Phys Fluids 10:550–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marmottant P, Hilgenfeldt S (2003) Controlled vesicle deformation and lysis by single oscillating bubbles. Nature 423:153–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller DL, Quddus J (2000) Sonoporation of monolayer cells by diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast-agent gas bodies. Ultrasound Med Biol 26:661–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pelekasis NA, Gaki A, Doinikov A, Tsamopoulos JA (2004) Secondary Bjerknes forces between two bubbles and the phenomenon of acoustic streamers. J Fluid Mech 500:313–347CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Tachibana K, Uchida T, Ogawa K, Yamashita N, Tamura K (1999) Induction of cell membrane porosity by ultrasound. Lancet 353:1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Takemura F, Magnaudet J (2003) The transverse force on clean and contaminated bubbles rising near a vertical wall at moderate Reynolds number. J Fluid Mech 495:235–253CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Ward M, Wu J, Chiu JF (2000) Experimental study of the effects of OPTISON® concentration on sonoporation in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 26:1169–1175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Yang SM, Leal LG (1991) A note on memory-integral contributions to the force on an accelerating spherical drop at low Reynolds number. Phys Fluids A 3:1822–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Marmottant
    • 1
    • 3
  • Michel Versluis
    • 1
  • Nico de Jong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sascha Hilgenfeldt
    • 1
    • 4
  • Detlef Lohse
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Science and TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Experimental EchocardiographyThoraxcentreRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Spectrométrie PhysiqueCNRS-Université Joseph FourierSaint Martin d’HèresFrance
  4. 4.Engineering Sciences & Applied Mathematics and Department of Mechanical EngineeringNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations