4.5 Article

Cavitation threshold of microbubbles in gel tunnels by focused ultrasound

Journal

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 10, Pages 1651-1660

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2007.04.018

Keywords

ultrasound contrast agents; cavitation; focused transducers; passive cavitation detection; broadband noise; gel phantom

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [U41-RR019703, U41 RR019703-03, U41 RR019703] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIBIB NIH HHS [R33-EB000705, R01 EB003268, R33 EB000705, R01-EB003268, R33 EB000705-05, R01 EB003268-08] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The investigation of inertial cavitation in micro-tunnels has significant implications for the development of therapeutic applications of ultrasound such as ultrasound-mediated drug and gene delivery. The threshold for inertial cavitation was investigated using a passive cavitation detector with a center frequency of 1 MHz. Micro-tunnels of various diameters (90 to 800 mu m) embedded in gel were fabricated and injected with a solution of optison (TM) contrast agent of concentrations 1.2% and 0.2% diluted in water. An ultrasound pulse of duration 500 ms and center frequency 1.736 MHz was used to insonate the microbubbles. The acoustic pressure was increased at 1-s intervals until broadband noise emission was detected. The pressure threshold at which broadband noise emission was observed was found to be dependent on the diameter of the micro-tunnels, with an average increase of 1.2 to 1.5 between the smallest and the largest tunnels, depending on the microbubble concentration. The evaluation of inertial cavitation in gel tunnels rather than tubes provides a novel opportunity to investigate microbubble collapse in a situation that simulates in vivo blood vessels better than tubes with solid walls do. (E-mail: esassaro@bwh.harvard.edu) (C) 2007 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available