ArticleUltrasonics sonochemistry2026
Ultrasonic-assisted chemical milling: surface roughness characterization and material removal enhancement of Al 6061.
Article in Ultrasonics sonochemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chemical milling (CHM) is widely used for thinning and pocketing components, especially in aerospace applications, but its low material removal rate (MRR) requires high etchant consumption and often leads to poor surface integrity. This study introduces a novel method, direct ultrasonic-assisted chemical milling (UACM), as an efficient and sustainable alternative to CHM. A full-factorial design examined three ultrasonic powers (50, 150, 250 W) across acidic and alkaline etchants at three concentration levels. MRR and roughness parameters (Ra, Rz, Sa) were experimentally quantified and modeled using ANOVA-based regression, while multi-region SEM/EDS elucidated oxide disruption, pit formation, and surface evolution on Al 6061. In 10 % HCl at 250 W, UACM increased MRR by 591 % through cavitation-enhanced agitation and rapid renewal of reactive species, enabling≈85.5 % reduction in acid use. Moreover, at matched MRR, UACM yielded 15-30 % lower Sa than CHM, producing uniform microporosity beneficial for bonding and coating applications. The best acidic condition was 15 % HCl at 250 W, where MRR increased from 0.70 to 1.30 mm/m/s and produced a clean, crack-free, homogeneous surface with optimal integrity. The optimal alkaline condition was 50 % NaOH at 250 W, where MRR increased from 0.08 to 0.23 mm/m/s (≈65.2 % time reduction), and the disruption of hydrogen-bubble shielding generated a uniform and stable morphology. Key experimental challenges included maintaining thermal stability under high acoustic power, controlling bubble adhesion in alkaline media, and achieving a reproducible initial surface. Overall, UACM substantially enhances removal efficiency, improves surface integrity, and reduces chemical consumption, offering a practical pathway toward high-precision and greener manufacturing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.