Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Concentration profiles of OH and H$_2$O$_2$ in plasma-treated water: influence of power, gas mixture and treatment distance

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Simulation shows that plasma-treated water's OH/H2O2 balance is tunable over orders of magnitude by power, humidity, jet distance, and treatment time.

desk verdict A useful parametric map for H2O2/OH in plasma-treated water, but the OH side rests on an unvalidated velocity assumption and needs experimental confirmation before the order-of-magnitude control claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03886 v1 pith:JSTKMDF5 submitted 2025-06-04 physics.plasm-ph

Anna Lena Schöne , Steffen Schüttler , Talisha Mro{ss} , Niklas Eichstaedt , Judith Golda , Lars Schücke , Andrew R. Gibson This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords plasma-liquidinteractionreactiveoxygenspecieshydrogenperoxidehydroxylradicalplasmajetreaction-diffusionmodeleffluentchemistryplasma-drivenbiocatalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Plasma jets that treat water produce two key reactive species, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and the hydroxyl radical (OH), and applications such as plasma-driven biocatalysis need one without too much of the other. This paper uses a 0-D plug-flow gas-phase kinetics simulation coupled to a 1-D reaction-diffusion liquid model to show that the depth profiles of both species are set by a simple division of labour: H2O2 is long-lived and its penetration into water is governed by transport, while OH is short-lived and is consumed mainly by reacting with H2O2. As a result, every operating knob—plasma power, water-vapour admixture, jet-to-liquid distance, and treatment time—moves both the absolute concentrations and the penetration depths in opposite directions for the two species, and the OH/H2O2 ratio in the liquid spans orders of magnitude. The simulations reproduce measured H2O2 trends as power and water admixture are varied, and they identify why OH density at the end of the plasma region is a poor predictor of OH delivered to the liquid: effluent chemistry consumes OH before it reaches the surface. If the picture is right, the same plasma device can be tuned to favour H2O2 (high humidity, higher power, long treatment) or OH (low humidity, low power, short treatment) without changing the reactor.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-stage simulation chain. Gas phase: a 0-D plasma-chemistry plug-flow model (GlobalKin) with a validated He/H2O reaction scheme marches species densities from the powered electrode region through the capillary and unguided effluent to the liquid surface, assuming the unguided flow velocity falls linearly to zero at the surface. The densities just above the interface are converted into liquid fluxes using Henry's-law-based boundary layer expressions from Semenov et al. Liquid phase: a 1-D reaction-diffusion equation solved with MATLAB's pdepe, using only two liquid reactions—OH + OH → H2O2 and OH + H2O2 → HO2 + H2O—and an experimentally derived effective diffusion coefficient for H2O2 that accounts for gas-flow-driven convection, while OH uses its molecular diffusion coefficient. The mechanism that does the explanatory work is the second reaction: as H2O2 accumulates in the liquid, it scavenges OH and shrinks OH's penetration depth, coupling treatment time to selectivity.

What would settle it

Measure the axial velocity profile of the effluent between the capillary exit and the liquid surface, for example with particle image velocimetry, and compare the OH flux computed from the real profile with the flux from the assumed linear fall-off; a mismatch would change predicted liquid OH concentrations and penetration depths directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the concentration profiles of H2O2 and OH in plasma-treated water are not set by plasma chemistry alone but by a gas-to-liquid relay in which the two species separate: H2O2 survives the effluent, crosses the interface, and spreads through the liquid like a diffusing plume, whereas OH is largely consumed twice—once in the effluent by reactions with O, H2, HO2, and H2O2, and again in the liquid by H2O2 itself. The liquid simulations therefore show H2O2 building up with treatment time and penetrating to millimetre depths, while OH stays within tens to hundreds of nanometres of the surface and its concentration falls as H2O2 accumulates. Trends in H2O2 in the liquid mirror trends in the gas-phase H2O2 density above the liquid for water-admixture and power variations, and the absolute simulations lie within a factor of about five of measured H2O2 concentrations; the experimental distance dependence is not captured by the model. The most striking consequence is that the OH/H2O2 ratio is a tunable property: low water admixture, low power, and short treatment times maximise selectivity for OH, while high water admixture, high power, and long treatment times maximise selectivity for H2O2.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated OH delivery to the water depends on an unmeasured assumption that the unguided gas flow slows linearly from the capillary exit to zero at the liquid surface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fixed jet setting, prolonging treatment increases the liquid H2O2 concentration and its penetration depth while decreasing the OH concentration and its penetration depth, because accumulated H2O2 consumes OH.
  • The H2O2 trend in the liquid can be read off the H2O2 density in the gas phase above the liquid for changes in power and water admixture, making gas-phase measurement a practical proxy for liquid outcome.
  • Operating maps with low water admixture, low deposited power, and short treatment times give the highest OH selectivity; high water admixture, higher power, and long treatment times give the highest H2O2 selectivity.
  • OH densities at the end of the plasma region cannot be used to predict OH delivery into the liquid; the effluent region's consumption chemistry must be included.
  • For plasma-driven biocatalysis, where H2O2 is wanted and OH is damaging, long treatment times, lower powers, higher water admixtures, and larger jet-to-liquid distances are the favourable settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the assumed linear velocity profile in the unguided effluent would be the quickest way to harden or correct the absolute OH fluxes, since the residence time of OH in the effluent is set by that profile.
  • The factor-five overestimate of absolute H2O2 and the missed distance trend suggest that the missing physics is jet spreading and lateral transport, not the liquid reaction scheme; a 2-D or 3-D gas-flow/interface model should close most of the gap without changing the two-reaction liquid chemistry.
  • The two-species liquid model omits other plasma-produced species such as nitrogen oxides, ozone, and superoxide; in applications with ambient air entrainment, those could compete for OH and shift the reported selectivity map.
  • Because treatment time alone flips the OH/H2O2 balance, real-time monitoring of H2O2 during treatment could enable feedback control that holds a target ratio as the liquid composition evolves.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a combined gas-phase (0-D plug-flow with GlobalKin) and liquid-phase (1-D reaction-diffusion) model to predict H2O2 and OH concentration profiles in water treated by a radio-frequency-driven helium plasma jet with a glass capillary. The model is used to explore how water admixture, deposited power, and jet-to-liquid distance affect H2O2 and OH in the liquid. H2O2 predictions are compared with colorimetric measurements after 900 s treatment, showing qualitative agreement for power and water-admixture trends but a factor-of-five overestimate in absolute concentration and a failure to reproduce the experimental decrease of H2O2 with jet-to-liquid distance. OH predictions are not experimentally validated; the model predicts OH is confined to nanometre depths and is consumed by H2O2, leading to the claim that the OH/H2O2 ratio can be controlled over orders of magnitude by the operating parameters. The paper emphasizes effluent chemistry as the key control point for OH delivery.

Significance. If valid, the framework is attractive because it couples a low-cost 0-D gas model to a 1-D liquid model and makes specific, falsifiable predictions about OH/H2O2 selectivity that are relevant to plasma-driven biocatalysis. The paper's strengths are its transparency about assumptions, its use of an experimentally calibrated effective diffusion coefficient for H2O2, and its direct comparison with measured H2O2 concentrations. However, the predictive value is currently limited by the unvalidated velocity profile in the unguided effluent, the hand-chosen lateral FWHM used in the volume averaging, and the absence of any experimental check of the OH predictions. These limitations affect the central quantitative claims (absolute concentrations and the 'orders of magnitude' ratio control) and therefore the paper currently reads as a useful hypothesis-generating study rather than a validated predictive model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Figs. 5-9] Section 2.1 states that the gas flow velocity in the unguided effluent is assumed to decrease linearly from the capillary exit to zero at the liquid surface, with the simulation length adjusted for an equivalent residence time. This kinematic profile is neither measured nor derived from fluid dynamics, yet it sets the residence time of OH in the effluent, where OH is consumed (Fig. 6). The H2O2 validation in Fig. 4 cannot constrain this assumption because H2O2 is nearly stable in the effluent. Since the OH flux to the liquid, and hence the simulated liquid OH concentration and penetration depth (Fig. 5), are first-order sensitive to this residence time, the paper's central claim that the OH/H2O2 ratio can be controlled over orders of magnitude relies on an untested assumption. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over plausible alternative velocity profiles (e.g., constant jet velocity with lateral spreading, or parabolic decay) and/or measurements of the gas velocity or OH density in the effluent to bound the uncertainty.
  2. [Section 3.1, Fig. 4] The comparison between simulated and experimental H2O2 concentrations requires an assumed Gaussian lateral profile with FWHM = 3 mm, described in Section 3.1 as a coarse estimate. The integrated concentration is strongly dependent on this FWHM, and the paper acknowledges that the value is uncertain. The reported factor-of-five overestimate is therefore not a well-constrained quantitative discrepancy; a different FWHM would change the simulation curve. Please quantify the sensitivity of the integrated H2O2 concentration to the FWHM over a reasonable range (e.g., 1-10 mm) and report the resulting uncertainty band. Without this, the claim of 'good qualitative agreement' cannot be distinguished from calibration.
  3. [Section 3.2] The OH concentration and penetration depth predictions (Fig. 5) have no experimental validation, yet they underpin the abstract's statement that the OH/H2O2 ratio can be controlled over orders of magnitude. The two-reaction liquid scheme (Reactions 1-2) omits other OH scavengers (e.g., dissolved oxygen, buffer species, or products of the plasma-liquid interaction), and the gas-phase velocity assumption discussed above directly controls OH delivery. The authors should either (i) provide an experimental OH measurement (e.g., using a fluorescent probe or a scavenger assay) for at least one operating condition, or (ii) perform and report a sensitivity analysis showing how the qualitative trends in Fig. 5 survive variations in the velocity profile and the liquid reaction set. As it stands, the 'orders of magnitude' control claim is a model extrapolation.
  4. [Section 3.3.3, Fig. 9] The model predicts H2O2 concentration in the liquid to be independent of jet-to-liquid distance, whereas the experiment shows a clear decrease with distance (Fig. 4c). The authors attribute this to unmodeled lateral spreading of the gas jet; this is reasonable, but it also implies that the OH-distance predictions in Fig. 5c are subject to the same unmodeled spreading, which would dilute the OH flux and change its residence time. Because the distance variation is one of the three control parameters claimed in the abstract, the failure to reproduce this trend for H2O2 should be treated as a major limitation for the OH-distance predictions as well. Please either include a simple model of jet spreading (e.g., an effective dilution factor as a function of distance) or restrict the control-parameter claims to power and water admixture.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] 'an UV cuvette' should be 'a UV cuvette'.
  2. [Section 2.2] 'ammonium metavandate' is a typo for 'ammonium metavanadate'; it appears twice in the description of the spectrophotometric measurement.
  3. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'The H2O2 remains unchanged...' should read 'The H2O2 concentration remains unchanged...'.
  4. [Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-9] Many axis labels and legend entries are difficult to read in the submitted resolution; please ensure all panels are legible.
  5. [Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2] The statement that OH is 'eight to thirteen orders of magnitude' lower than H2O2 in Sec. 3.3.1 is inconsistent with 'around fourteen orders of magnitude' in Sec. 3.3.2; please reconcile the numbers for comparable conditions.
  6. [Section 3.2] The definition of the averaged OH concentration ('averaged over the distance between the liquid surface and the penetration depth') would benefit from being written as an explicit equation, since this quantity is central to Fig. 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the modeling chain uses externally validated chemistry and previously measured transport coefficients, and the paper's predictions are not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a gas-phase 0-D plug-flow model (GlobalKin with a published He/H2O scheme [43]) feeding fluxes to a 1-D liquid reaction-diffusion model. The only parameters imported from prior work are the experimentally derived effective diffusion coefficient for H2O2 and the molecular diffusion coefficient for OH, both from [37]. These are transport inputs, not the predicted concentrations or trends; the paper's central claims (H2O2 profiles transport-driven, OH consumed by H2O2, ratio controllable over orders of magnitude) follow from solving the stated equations, not from reloading the target quantities. The linear velocity decay in the unguided effluent and the 3 mm FWHM Gaussian lateral profile are ad hoc, unvalidated assumptions, and the paper explicitly flags them as limitations (Section 2.1 and Section 3.1); but an assumption being unvalidated is a correctness/robustness issue, not circularity. The factor-of-five overestimation and the failure to reproduce the distance trend are reported rather than hidden. Self-citations to [37] and [29] are load-bearing for model setup and transport parameters, but they point to published experimental validation (time- and space-resolved H2O2 measurements) and to external kinetics work; no step reduces to its own output by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model inherits its gas chemistry, interfacial flux coefficients, and the effective H2O2 diffusion coefficient from prior work by the same group, and it introduces a hand-chosen lateral FWHM for the experimental comparison. The OH transport and reaction parameters come from literature and prior simulations; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Effective H2O2 diffusion coefficient in liquid = Not given here; experimentally derived in [37]
    Controls the simulated H2O2 penetration depth and therefore the OH consumption profile. It was fitted to prior measurements at 0.25 slm and applied unchanged across all parameter variations.
  • Lateral FWHM of H2O2 distribution for volume averaging = 3 mm
    Used to convert the 1-D simulated depth profile into a volume-averaged concentration for comparison with stirred-cuvette measurements. The paper calls it a coarse assumption and a significant uncertainty.
  • Gas and liquid boundary layer thicknesses in interfacial flux model = Not stated; inherited from [19,37]
    The flux expressions from the interface model depend on boundary layer thicknesses, which are not specified in this paper and could affect the absolute species fluxes into the liquid.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption He-H2O gas-phase reaction scheme developed for dielectric-free COST jets remains valid for this capillary jet with glass dielectric
    Invoked in Section 2.1. The authors note the scheme was validated without dielectric but has also been used for this capillary jet in [29,37].
  • ad hoc to paper Unguided effluent flow velocity decreases linearly to zero at the liquid surface
    Section 2.1. This kinematic choice determines effluent residence times and OH decay, with no direct experimental support provided.
  • domain assumption Two-reaction liquid chemistry (OH+OH and OH+H2O2) is sufficient to describe OH and H2O2 in water
    Section 2.1. The model neglects other OH sinks and solution constituents; reasonable for nearly pure water but unverified for all conditions.
  • domain assumption Effective diffusion coefficient for H2O2 is valid across all operating conditions studied
    Section 2.1. The coefficient was derived at one condition in [37] and applied unchanged over the full power, humidity, and distance sweeps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Concentration profiles of OH and H$_2$O$_2$ in plasma-treated water: influence of power, gas mixture and treatment distance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JSTKMDF5

@misc{pith2026250603886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Concentration profiles of OH and H$_2$O$_2$ in plasma-treated water: influence of power, gas mixture and treatment distance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JSTKMDF5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03886}
}
abstract

Plasma liquid interactions are important for a range of applications. For these, H$_2$O$_2$ and OH represent two key reactive species, whose concentrations in liquids need to be controlled for effective application outcomes. Here, a combination of gas and liquid simulations is used to study the concentration profiles of H$_2$O$_2$ and OH in water treated by a radio-frequency-driven plasma jet, with a glass capillary between the electrodes, operated in He with admixtures of water vapour. Simulations are compared with measured H$_2$O$_2$ concentrations and found to be in good qualitative agreement as plasma power and water admixture are varied. Simulation results show that the concentration profiles of H$_2$O$_2$ in the liquid are mainly determined by transport, while those of OH are limited by reactions with H$_2$O$_2$, which consumes OH. For a given plasma operating condition, the concentration and penetration depth of H$_2$O$_2$ increase with plasma treatment time, while those of OH tend to decrease because of the increasing H$_2$O$_2$ concentration. Plasma power, water vapour admixture, and the distance between the jet and the liquid surface all allow for the concentrations of H$_2$O$_2$ and OH to be controlled. The OH delivered from the gas phase to the liquid, and its concentration within the liquid are strongly dependent on the reaction pathways occurring in the effluent region, such that the trends in OH density at the end of the plasma region differ from those in the liquid. While the concentration of OH in the liquid is always much lower than that of H$_2$O$_2$, the ratio of the two species can be controlled over orders of magnitude by varying water admixture and power. The highest selectivity to OH is at low water admixtures, low powers and short treatment times, while the highest selectivity to H$_2$O$_2$ is at high water admixtures, high powers and long treatment times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This approach is previously used and described in [37], so only a brief summary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the simulated and experimental configuration. 0-D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatio-temporal profiles of a) H2O2 and b) OH for a plasma power of 6.0W, a water admixture of 6400 ppm, and a distance between the end of the plasma forming region and the liquid surface of 24 mm. The H2O2 concentration distribution ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulated H2O2 behaviour in the liquid over a) water admixture, b) deposited plasma power, and c) distance between jet and liquid surface (for 4.0 mm, 5.0 mm, and 6.0 mm below the liquid surface), compared to the simulated gas phase behaviour. Base conditions are at 6.…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: H2O2 behaviour in the liquid over a) water admixture, b) deposited plasma power, and c) distance between jet and liquid surface, integrated over the measured volume compared to the experiment. Base conditions are at 6.0W deposited plasma power, 6400 ppm water admixture…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The H2O2 concentration increases until it reaches a maximum at 3W followed by a decrease with increasing deposited plasma power. The trends of simulated and experimentally measured values are in good agreement even though the absolute values differ by a factor of five.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Averaged OH concentration in the liquid, penetration depth of OH in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Main production (legend lower left for a), c) and e)) and consumption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Depth profiles at 300 s and 1200 s of plasma treatment of a) H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Depth profiles after 300 s and 1200 s of plasma treatment of a) H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Depth profiles at 300 s and 1200 s of plasma treatment of a) H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Poggemann, S

    H.-F. Poggemann, S. Sch¨ uttler, A.L. Sch¨ one, E. Jeß, L. Sch¨ ucke, T. Jacob, A.R. Gibson, J. Golda, and C. Jung. Transportation behaviour of OH and H2O2 in plasma-treated water. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , 58(13):135208, February 2025. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Khlyustova, C

    A. Khlyustova, C. Labay, Zdenko Machala, M.-P. Ginebra, and C. Canal. Important parameters in plasma jets for the production of rons in liquids for plasma medicine: A brief review. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 13:238–252, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Gorbanev, A

    Y. Gorbanev, A. Privat-Maldonado, and A. Bogaerts. Analysis of short-lived reactive species in plasma–air–water systems: The dos and the do nots, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Kondeti, C.Q Phan, K

    V.S.S.K. Kondeti, C.Q Phan, K. Wende, H. Jablonowski, U. Gangal, J.L. Granick, R.C. Hunter, and P.J. Bruggeman. Long-lived and short-lived reactive species produced by a cold atmospheric pressure plasma jet for the inactivation of pseudomonas aeruginosa and staphylococcus aureus. Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 124:275–287, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Lietz and M.J

    A.M. Lietz and M.J. Kushner. Air plasma treatment of liquid covered tissue: long timescale chemistry. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , 49(42):425204, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    X. Lu, G.V. Naidis, M. Laroussi, S. Reuter, D.B. Graves, and K. Ostrikov. Reactive species in non-equilibrium atmospheric-pressure plasmas: Generation, transport, and biological effects. Physics Reports, 630:1–84, May 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    M. Keidar. Plasma for cancer treatment. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 24(3):033001, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Laroussi

    M. Laroussi. Nonthermal decontamination of biological media by atmospheric- pressure plasmas: review, analysis, and prospects. IEEE Transactions on plasma science, 30(4):1409–1415, 2003

    work page 2003

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Gallagher, N

    M.J. Gallagher, N. Vaze, S. Gangoli, V.N. Vasilets, A.F. Gutsol, T.N. Milovanova, S. Anandan, D.M. Murasko, and A.A. Fridman. Rapid inactivation of airborne bacteria using atmospheric pressure dielectric barrier grating discharge. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science , 35(5):15...

    2007

  2. [9]

    Marsit, L.E

    N.M. Marsit, L.E. Sidney, M.J. Branch, S.L. Wilson, and A. Hopkinson. Terminal sterilization: conventional methods versus emerging cold atmospheric pressure Liquid concentration profiles of OH and H 2O2 23 plasma technology for non-viable biological tissues. Plasma Processes a...

    2017

  3. [10]

    Gorbanev, E

    Y. Gorbanev, E. Vervloessem, A. Nikiforov, and A. Bogaerts. Nitrogen fixation with water vapor by nonequilibrium plasma: toward sustainable ammonia production. ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering , 8(7):2996–3004, 2020

    2020

  4. [11]

    Yayci, T

    A. Yayci, T. Dirks, F. Kogelheide, M. Alcalde, F. Hollmann, P. Awakowicz, and J.E. Bandow. Microscale atmospheric pressure plasma jet as a source for plasma- driven biocatalysis. ChemCatChem, 12(23):5893–5897, 2020

    2020

  5. [12]

    Yayci, ´A.G

    A. Yayci, ´A.G. Baraibar, M. Krewing, E. Fernandez Fueyo, F. Hollmann, M. Alcalde, R. Kourist, and J.E. Bandow. Plasma-driven in situ production of hydrogen peroxide for biocatalysis. ChemSusChem, 13(8):2072–2079, 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Wapshott-Stehli, B.G

    H.L. Wapshott-Stehli, B.G. Myers, M.J. Herrera Quesada, A. Grunden, and K. Stapelmann. Plasma-driven biocatalysis: In situ hydrogen peroxide production with an atmospheric pressure plasma jet increases the performance of OleTJE when compared to adding the same molar amount of ...

    2022

  7. [14]

    Heirman and A

    P. Heirman and A. Bogaerts. Critical comparison of interfacial boundary conditions in modelling plasma–liquid interaction. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 58(8):085206, 2024

    2024

  8. [15]

    S. Park, W. Choe, H. Lee, J.Y. Park, J. Kim, S.Y. Moon, and U. Cvelbar. Stabilization of liquid instabilities with ionized gas jets. Nature, 592(7852):49–53, 2021

    2021

  9. [16]

    Brubaker, K

    T.R. Brubaker, K. Ishikawa, H. Kondo, T. Tsutsumi, H. Hashizume, H. Tanaka, S.D. Knecht, S.G. Bil´ en, and M. Hori. Liquid dynamics in response to an impinging low-temperature plasma jet. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , 52(7):075203, 2018

    2018

  10. [17]

    Heirman, W

    P. Heirman, W. Van Boxem, and A. Bogaerts. Reactivity and stability of plasma- generated oxygen and nitrogen species in buffered water solution: a computational study. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics , 21(24):12881–12894, June 2019. Publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2019

  11. [18]

    Ikuse and S

    K. Ikuse and S. Hamaguchi. Roles of the reaction boundary layer and long diffusion of stable reactive nitrogen species (rns) in plasma-irradiated water as an oxidizing media—numerical simulation study. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 61(7):076002, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Semenov, K.-D

    I.L. Semenov, K.-D. Weltmann, and D. Loffhagen. Modelling of the transport phenomena for an atmospheric-pressure plasma jet in contact with liquid. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , 52(31):315203, May 2019. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2019

  13. [20]

    Winter, R

    J. Winter, R. Brandenburg, and K.-D. Weltmann. Atmospheric pressure plasma jets: an overview of devices and new directions. Plasma sources science and Liquid concentration profiles of OH and H 2O2 24 technology, 24(6):064001, 2015

    2015

  14. [21]

    Reuter, T

    S. Reuter, T. Von Woedtke, and K.-D. Weltmann. The kinpen—a review on physics and chemistry of the atmospheric pressure plasma jet and its applications. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , 51(23):233001, 2018

    2018

  15. [22]

    Golda, J

    J. Golda, J. Held, B. Redeker, M. Konkowski, P. Beijer, A. Sobota, G. Kroesen, N.St.J. Braithwaite, S. Reuter, M.M. Turner, T. Gans, D. O’Connell, and V. Schulz-von der Gathen. Concepts and characteristics of the ‘COST Reference Microplasma Jet’. Journal of Physics D: Applied ...

  16. [23]

    Herrera Quesada, S

    M.J. Herrera Quesada, S. Pfaff, J. Polito, G. Gall, M.J. Kushner, J.H. Frank, and K. Stapelmann. Two-dimensional mapping of absolute OH densities in an atmospheric pressure plasma effluent via planar laser-induced fluorescence: effects of He/H2O and He/O2 mixtures in N2 and ai...

    2025

  17. [24]

    Labenski, S

    R. Labenski, S. Burhenn, M. Kai, P. Pottk¨ amper, M. B¨ oke, V. Schulz-von der Gathen, and J. Golda. Influence of humidity on the three-dimensional OH distribution in the effluent of the COST-Jet. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 58(23):235202, May 2025. Publisher: IOP P...

    2025

  18. [25]

    Ellerweg, J

    D. Ellerweg, J. Benedikt, A. von Keudell, N. Knake, and V. Schulz-von der Gathen. Characterization of the effluent of a He/O2 microscale atmospheric pressure plasma jet by quantitative molecular beam mass spectrometry. New Journal of Physics , 12(1):013021, January 2010

    2010

  19. [26]

    Harris, L

    B. Harris, L. Kr¨ os, A.S.C. Nave, E. Wagenaars, and J.H. van Helden. The spatial density distribution of H2O2 in the effluent of the COST-Jet and the kINPen- sci operated with a humidified helium feed gas. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 32(11):115010, November 2023. P...

    2023

  20. [27]

    Myers, E

    B. Myers, E. Barnat, and K. Stapelmann. Atomic oxygen density determination in the effluent of the COST reference source using in situ effective lifetime measurements in the presence of a liquid interface. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 54(45):455202, August 2021. Publ...

    2021

  21. [28]

    Jiang, V.S.S.K

    J. Jiang, V.S.S.K. Kondeti, G. Nayak, and P.J. Bruggeman. Experimental and modeling studies of the plasma chemistry in a humid Ar radiofrequency atmospheric pressure plasma jet. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , 55(22):225206, March 2022. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2022

  22. [29]

    Sch¨ uttler, A.L

    S. Sch¨ uttler, A.L. Sch¨ one, E. Jeß, A.R. Gibson, and J. Golda. Production and transport of plasma-generated hydrogen peroxide from gas to liquid. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics , February 2024. Publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2024

  23. [30]

    Schr¨ oter, A

    S. Schr¨ oter, A. Wijaikhum, A.R. Gibson, A. West, H.L. Davies, N. Minesi, Liquid concentration profiles of OH and H 2O2 25 J. Dedrick, E. Wagenaars, N. de Oliveira, L. Nahon, M.J. Kushner, J.-P. Booth, K. Niemi, T. Gans, and D. O’Connell. Chemical kinetics in an atmospheric p...

    2018

  24. [31]

    Schr¨ oter, J

    S. Schr¨ oter, J. Bredin, A.R. Gibson, A. West, J.P. Dedrick, E. Wagenaars, K. Niemi, T. Gans, and D. O’Connell. The formation of atomic oxygen and hydrogen in atmospheric pressure plasmas containing humidity: picosecond two- photon absorption laser induced fluorescence and nu...

    2020

  25. [32]

    Gianella, S

    M. Gianella, S. Reuter, S.A. Press, A. Schmidt-Bleker, J.H. van Helden, and G.A.D. Ritchie. HO2 reaction kinetics in an atmospheric pressure plasma jet determined by cavity ring-down spectroscopy. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 27(9):095013, September 2018. Publisher: ...

    2018

  26. [33]

    T.A. Hahn, J. Benedikt, and H. Kersten. Absolute densities of O and O 3 in the effluent of an atmospheric pressure plasma jet (kINPen) operated with He and Ar determined by molecular beam mass spectrometry. The European Physical Journal D , 77(3):47, March 2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    Gorbanev, C.C.W

    Y. Gorbanev, C.C.W. Verlackt, S. Tinck, E. Tuenter, K. Foubert, P. Cos, and A. Bogaerts. Combining experimental and modelling approaches to study the sources of reactive species induced in water by the COST RF plasma jet. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics , 20(4):2797–2808, ...

    2018

  28. [35]

    Lietz and M.J

    A.M. Lietz and M.J. Kushner. Air plasma treatment of liquid covered tissue: long timescale chemistry. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , 49(42):425204, September 2016. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2016

  29. [36]

    Sgonina, G

    K. Sgonina, G. Bruno, S. Wyprich, K. Wende, and J. Benedikt. Reactions of plasma-generated atomic oxygen at the surface of aqueous phenol solution: Experimental and modeling study. Journal of Applied Physics , 130(4):043303, July 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Verlackt, W

    C.C.W. Verlackt, W. Van Boxem, and A. Bogaerts. Transport and accumulation of plasma generated species in aqueous solution. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 20(10):6845–6859, March 2018. Publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2018

  31. [39]

    Lindsay, C

    A. Lindsay, C. Anderson, E. Slikboer, S. Shannon, and D. Graves. Momentum, Liquid concentration profiles of OH and H 2O2 26 heat, and neutral mass transport in convective atmospheric pressure plasma-liquid systems and implications for aqueous targets. Journal of Physics D: App...

    2015

  32. [40]

    Oinuma, G

    G. Oinuma, G. Nayak, Y. Du, and P.J. Bruggeman. Controlled plasma–droplet interactions: a quantitative study of OH transfer in plasma–liquid interaction. Plasma Sources Science and Technology , 29(9):095002, September 2020. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2020

  33. [41]

    Norberg, W

    S.A. Norberg, W. Tian, E. Johnsen, and M.J. Kushner. Atmospheric pressure plasma jets interacting with liquid covered tissue: touching and not-touching the liquid. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , 47(47):475203, November 2014. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2014

  34. [42]

    Kamidollayev and J.P

    T. Kamidollayev and J.P. Trelles. Modeling of reactive species interphase transport in plasma jet impinging on water. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 56(50):505203, September 2023. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2023

  35. [43]

    Brisset, A.R

    A. Brisset, A.R. Gibson, S. Schr¨ oter, K. Niemi, J.-P. Booth, T. Gans, D. O’Connell, and E. Wagenaars. Chemical kinetics and density measurements of OH in an atmospheric pressure He + O2 + H2O radiofrequency plasma. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 54(28):285201, May 20...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Schr¨ oter, A.R

    S. Schr¨ oter, A.R. Gibson, M.J. Kushner, T. Gans, and D. O’Connell. Numerical study of the influence of surface reaction probabilities on reactive species in an rf atmospheric pressure plasma containing humidity. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 60(1):014035, November 20...

    2017

  37. [45]

    pdepe - Solve 1-D parabolic and elliptic PDEs

    The MathWorks Inc. pdepe - Solve 1-D parabolic and elliptic PDEs. https: //de.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/pdepe.html, 2023. Last accessed at: 5 June 2025

    2023

  38. [46]

    Golda, F

    J. Golda, F. Kogelheide, P. Awakowicz, and V. Schulz-von der Gathen. Dissipated electrical power and electron density in an rf atmospheric pressure helium plasma jet. Plasma sources science and technology , 28(9):095023, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Sch¨ uttler, L

    S. Sch¨ uttler, L. Jolmes, E. Jeß, K. Tschulik, and J. Golda. Validation of in situ diagnostics for the detection of oh and h2o2 in liquids treated by a humid atmospheric pressure plasma jet. Plasma Processes and Polymers, 21(2):2300079, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Gopalakrishnan, E

    R. Gopalakrishnan, E. Kawamura, A.J. Lichtenberg, M.A. Lieberman, and D.B. Graves. Solvated electrons at the atmospheric pressure plasma–water anodic interface. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , 49(29):295205, July 2016. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2016

  41. [49]

    Rumbach, D.M

    P. Rumbach, D.M. Bartels, and D.B. Go. The penetration and concentration of solvated electrons and hydroxyl radicals at a plasma-liquid interface. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 27(11):115013, November 2018. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2018

  42. [2016]

    Publisher: IOP Publishing

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.