Cited by 69Laser Material Processing TechniquesLaser-Ablation Synthesis of NanoparticlesLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications

Plasma and nanoparticle shielding during pulsed laser ablation in liquids cause ablation efficiency decrease

Open access
Dittrich, Sarah, Barcikowski, Stephan, Gökce, Bilal·2021·Opto-Electronic Advances

Abstract

Understanding shielding cross-effects is a prerequisite for maximal power-specific nanosecond laser ablation in liquids (LAL). However, discrimination between cavitation bubble (CB), nanoparticle (NP), and shielding, e.g., by the plasma or a transient vapor layer, is challenging. Therefore, CB imaging by shadowgraphy is performed to better understand the plasma and laser beam-NP interaction during LAL. By comparing the fluence-dependent CB volume for ablations performed with 1 ns pulses with reports from the literature, we find larger energy-specific CB volumes for 7 ns-ablation. The increased CB for laser ablation with higher ns pulse durations could be a first explanation of the efficiency decrease reported for these laser systems having higher pulse durations. Consequently, 1 ns-LAL shows superior ablation efficiency. Moreover, a CB cascade occurs when the focal plane is shifted into the liquid. This effect is enhanced when NPs are present in the fluid. Even minute amounts of NPs trapped in a stationary layer decrease the laser energy significantly, even under liquid flow. However, this local concentration in the sticking film has so far not been considered. It presents an essential obstacle in high-yield LAL, shielding already the second laser pulse that arrives and presenting a source of satellite bubbles. Hence, measures to lower the NP concentration on the target must be investigated in the future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.29026/oea.2021.200072

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dittrich, S., Barcikowski, S., & Gökce, B.
Affiliations
University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
Corresponding author
Barcikowski, Stephan
Venue
Opto-Electronic Advances
Published
2021
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
200072
ISSN
  • 2096-4579 (ISSN-L)
  • 2097-3993
OpenAlex
W3125756916
Cited by
69
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 6
FWCI
6.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Opto-Electronic Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (GO 2566/8-1, GO 2566/7-1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Laser Material Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Laser-Ablation Synthesis of Nanoparticles
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Laser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Keywords
laser ablation in liquid, plasma shielding, cavitation bubbles, ablation efficiency, nanosecond laser pulses, pulse duration effects, shadowgraphy, nanoparticle concentration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review