Subject: Ultrasound
N. Caldararo asks why we did not cite his article on the dangers of ultrasonics on paper artifacts ("Tests on the effects of the use of ultrasound in the humidification of paper," Book and Paper Group Annual, volume 11, (Washington DC: Book and Paper Group, AIC, 1992) pp1-20. The answer is that we did not consider it relevant to our technique, the consolidation of powdery paints by ultrasonic mist. The long answer begins with clarifying the nature of ultrasonic effects. All quotes in this paragraph come from a very recent and readable review by K.S. Suslick, "Sonochemistry", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 4th ed., Supplement Volume, 1998: "The origin of sonochemistry and sonoluminescence is acoustic cavitation: the formation, growth, and implosive collapse of bubbles in liquids irradiated with high intensity sound....In clouds of cavitating bubbles, these hot-spots have equivalent temperatures of roughly 5000 K, pressures of about 1000 atmospheres, and heating and cooling rates above 10^10 K/s." p. 516 " When liquids that contain solids are irradiated with ultrasound, related phenomena can occur. When cavitation occurs near an extended solid surface, cavity collapse is nonspherical and drives high speed jets of liquid into the surface. These jets and associated shockwaves can cause substantial surface damage and expose fresh, highly heated surfaces." p. 517 and "The chemical effects of ultrasound do not arise from a direct interaction with molecular species... no direct coupling of the acoustic field with chemical species on a molecular level can account for sonochemistry.." p, 517. Thus, without a liquid carrying the ultrasonic wave, there is no means of bubble formation, no impressive cavitation phenomena. All soundwaves, and particularly high frequencies like ultrasonics, do not cross an air/liquid or air/solid interface well at all, due to severe impedance mismatch. They are reflected. What little energy does cross such interfaces diminishes rapidly in intensity with distance, (square law for the small sources we are concerned with). Otherwise, ultrasonic humidifiers would drive dogs insane for miles (kilometres). Our apparatus generates mist in a bottle of liquid. A slow stream of incoming air pushes the mist/air mixture down an exit tube to the artifact. The source bottle is typically a meter or more from the artifact. It is not at all analogous to an ultrasonic bath, or the deceptively "dry" Cavitron dental tool for example, which is very close to what it cleans, and which must be connected by a liquid droplet between the probe and the surface being cleaned. In Caldararo's compilation of articles on observed physical or chemical effects, every example deals in ultrasonic exposure mediated by a continuous liquid between source and target. Unfortunately, this leaves one with the only evidence provided to suggest damaging ultrasonics leaping across a considerable air gap as Caldararo's own study of damage to typing ink on paper. Clearly, the purpose of the paper and the modest experiments was to provide a warning about possible side-effects, to encourage more thorough study, which we all agree is "a good thing", and completely reasonable in the immersion bath use of ultrasonics. However. I have never thought an open dist-list is appropriate for "refereeing" a paper after the fact, but the author has publicly asked why I ignored his article (Which I did on purpose, not by ignorance. It is my job to read thoroughly.) To give a detailed critique of the data in this venue would be inappropriate, and would place me well into the evil empire of arrogant scientists. I will simply say that I am not convinced by the published evidence. There are more plausible explanations for the images in the micro-photographs other than Caldararo's speculation that "while the energy delivered by humidification cannot be great , there may be some affinity between the matrix components (of ink on paper) and that energy." Stefan Michalski *** Conservation DistList Instance 11:95 Distributed: Friday, May 22, 1998 Message Id: cdl-11-95-001 ***Received on Friday, 22 May, 1998