Power-response fingerprinting reveals probe-dependent scaling and a productivity-efficiency trade-off in a high-frequency sonoreactor.

Oualid Hamdaoui, Hamza Ferkous, Muthupandian Ashokkumar

Abstract read

In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Oualid HamdaouiChemical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud University, 12372 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: ohamdaoui@ksu.edu.sa.

Hamza FerkousDepartment of Process Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Badji Mokhtar - Annaba University, 23000 Annaba, Algeria.

Muthupandian AshokkumarSchool of Chemistry, The University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemical dosimetries are widely used to characterize acoustic cavitation, yet their signals are often treated as interchangeable measures of a single radical yield. The unresolved question is whether differences among these signals remain as fixed assay-specific offsets or change systematically when acoustic power is varied. Here, power-response fingerprinting (PRF) is introduced as a probe-aware framework for comparing how chemically distinct reporters respond to the same calorimetrically measured power perturbation. At 585 kHz, the dissipated acoustic power was 9.65, 38.0, and 79.0 W, and the corresponding responses were quantified using potassium iodide (KI/I

Indexed as

Dissolved gasEnergy-specific responseHigh-frequency ultrasoundHydrogen peroxideMulti-dosimetryPower-response fingerprinting

Identifiers

PMID42815307

DOI10.1016/j.ultsonch.2026.108086

PMCPMC13656971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.