The Current Understanding of the Mechanisms Underlying Cavitation: A Review with Recommendations for Future Research

Global Journal of Technology and Optimization

ISSN: 2229-8711

Open Access

Mini Review - (2022) Volume 13, Issue 8

The Current Understanding of the Mechanisms Underlying Cavitation: A Review with Recommendations for Future Research

Erik Kropat*
*Correspondence: Erik Kropat, Department of Applied Mathematics, Technical University Darmstadt, Karolinenpl, Germany, Email:
Department of Applied Mathematics, Technical University Darmstadt, Karolinenpl, Germany

Received: 02-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. gjto-22-78706; Editor assigned: 04-Aug-2022, Pre QC No. P-78706; Reviewed: 16-Aug-2022, QC No. Q-78706; Revised: 21-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. R-78706; Published: 28-Aug-2022 , DOI: 10.37421/2229-8711.2022.13.309
Citation: Kropat, Erik. “The Current Understanding of the Mechanisms Underlying Cavitation: A Review with Recommendations for Future Research.” Glob J Tech Optim 13 (2022): 309.
Copyright: © 2022 Kropat E. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


A sudden drop in pressure causes vapour and gas bubbles to form within a liquid medium (alsocalled cavitation). This causes a slew of (important) engineering issues, including material loss, noise, and vibration of hydraulic machinery. Cavitation, on the other hand, is a potentially useful phenomenon: extreme conditions are increasingly being used for a wide range of applications, including surface cleaning, enhanced chemistry, and wastewater treatment (bacteria eradication and virus inactivation). Despite these significant advances, there is still a significant gap between our understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to the effects of cavitation and its application.


Cavitation • Wastewater treatment • Noise • Bacteria


One issue we've noticed in recent years, and which persists in many studies on cavitation exploitation, is that understanding cavitation is taken for granted. As a result, in Section 2, we made an effort to explain the main differences between two cavitation types. Another issue is that the findings of one study are frequently applied to different types of contaminants - for example, it is argued that a specific type of cavitation reactor that is efficient for pharmaceutical removal will also efficiently destroy bacteria. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Section 3 describes the characteristics of various microorganisms, with a focus on their outer layer, where the first effects of cavitation are expected to occur [1].

Cavitation is the formation of small vapour bubbles (cavities) within a homogeneous liquid medium. It is a rapid physical phenomenon caused by a sudden drop in pressure. As the pressure rises, the bubble undergoes a violent collapse and possible rebound. Bubble growth collects energy from the surrounding liquid, which is then released by bubble collapses, where extreme conditions can form locally [2]. Bubble collapse can result in pressure shocks of several hundred MPa, and if the bubble collapses asymmetrically, so-called microjets with velocities exceeding 100 m/s can form. Furthermore, hot spots with extreme temperatures in the order of several 1000 K can form at the centre of the bubble during its collapse, which can cause the formation of bubbles.

Literature Review

Furthermore, the effect of bacterial inactivation may be affected by the characteristics of the bacteria used. Gao et al. proposed that rod-shaped cells cause Bacillus subtilis inactivation via cell wall breakdown with HFUS. They discovered that LFUS had a lower inactivation rate than HFUS. Cameron et al. observed a distinct destruction of rod-shaped Lactobacillus acidophilus cells, with the majority of damaged cells having "sheared off" the tip of the cells. Gram-positive bacteria appeared to be more resistant to cavitation than gramnegative bacteria. This is thought to be due to their cell wall being thicker, more rigid, and robust [3].

There are numerous inconsistencies in the summarised literature data, as can be seen. It is clear that the majority of research is focused on AC, and that studies on the potential of HC for microorganism destruction have only recently gained traction. It is also clear that little progress has been made in developing new methods of cavitation generation, particularly in the case of HC [4].

Generally speaking, discrete or continuous search domains were the focus of development for the majority of GO algorithms. However, with only a few minor adjustments, many algorithms and their underlying search principles can be effective for other problem areas. For instance, evolution strategies (ES) originated in the discrete problem area and are now prominent in continuous optimization. The transition of the ES from discrete to continuous choice variables is described by Beyer and Schwefel. In light of this, the essay focuses on showing method variants for the continuous domain even though they originated in or perform best in the discrete domain [5].


When describing HC operating conditions, the influence of inlet pressure, flow rate, or velocities in constrictions is frequently regarded as critical factors influencing results [6]. The cavitation number is frequently determined based on the previously mentioned parameters, and incorrect conclusions are drawn, such as the highest removal rate being conditioned by this parameter. Most authors misinterpret the results or draw irrelevant conclusions because the cavitation number itself only vaguely describes the cavitation characteristics. Cavitation behaviour is dependent on many mutually influencing operating parameters, and changing one of them affects all other parameters. As a result, concluding that one parameter influences the results may be deceptive [7].


Regardless of the availability of various conventional options for heavy oil upgrading, the petroleum refining industry, like any other chemical process industry, is looking for newer options to efficiently convert heavy hydrocarbons into lighter, more value-added products in its quest to be more energy efficient. The primary goal is to increase the throughput of crude oil refining while decreasing the power requirements of current processes and improving product quality to satisfy the consumer market. It should be noted that the majority of conventional processes use high-temperature heat to crack large hydrocarbon molecules. Because cracking is random and unpredictable, the non-specificity of supplying energy for bond scission results in less desirable products. Another, and possibly the most serious, disadvantages.



Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.


  1. Gogate, Parag R. "Treatment of wastewater streams containing phenolic compounds using hybrid techniques based on cavitation: A review of the current status and the way forward." Ultrason Sonochem 15 (2008): 1-15.
  2. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  3. Mondal, Joydip, Rajaram Lakkaraju, Parthasarathi Ghosh and Muthupandian Ashokkumar. "Acoustic cavitation-induced shear: A mini-review." Biophys Rev (2021): 1-15.
  4. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  5. Abdurahman, Mohamed Hussein and Ahmad Zuhairi Abdullah. "Mechanism and reaction kinetic of hybrid ozonation-ultrasonication treatment for intensified degradation of emerging organic contaminants in water: A critical review." Chem Eng Process 154 (2020): 108047.
  6. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  7. Zhang, Yuning, Zhongdong Qian, Bin Ji and Yulin Wu. "A review of microscopic interactions between cavitation bubbles and particles in silt-laden flow." Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 56 (2016): 303-318.
  8. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  9. Chowdhury, Sayan Mullick, Lotfi Abou-Elkacem, Taehwa Lee and Jeremy Dahl, et al. "Ultrasound and microbubble mediated therapeutic delivery: Underlying mechanisms and future outlook." J Control Release 326 (2020): 75-90.
  10. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  11. Wu, Boran, Xiaohu Dai and Xiaoli Chai. "Critical review on dewatering of sewage sludge: Influential mechanism, conditioning technologies and implications to sludge re-utilizations." Water Res 180 (2020): 115912.
  12. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  13. Matsumoto, Himeka, Yoshito Yoshimine and Akifumi Akamine. "Visualization of irrigant flow and cavitation induced by Er: YAG laser within a root canal model." J Endod 37 (2011): 839-843.
  14. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

50+ Million Readerbase

Recommended Conferences

International Conference and Expo on Digital Health

Paris, France

Journal Highlights

Google Scholar citation report
Citations: 664

Global Journal of Technology and Optimization received 664 citations as per Google Scholar report

Global Journal of Technology and Optimization peer review process verified at publons

Indexed In

Recommended Conferences

International Conference and Expo on Digital Health

Paris, France

International Conference and Expo on Digital Health

Paris, France
arrow_upward arrow_upward