1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Compare ultrasound-mediated heating and cavitation between flowing polymer- and lipid-shelled microbubbles during focused ultrasound exposures
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.4714339
/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/6/10.1121/1.4714339
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/6/10.1121/1.4714339

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Schematic of the experimental apparatus. The thermocouple was inserted into the phantom to locate the tip about 1 mm away from the front wall of the vessel.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Temperature response versus time in front of a 3 mm diameter vessel in the phantom and normalized ICD for the saline, polymer-, and lipid-shelled MBs when the solution was static in the vessel. The FU focus was positioned in the middle of the vessel at the acoustic power [(a) and (c)] 2.7 W and [(b) and (d)] 16.8 W with exposure for 5 s.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Statistical results of (a) temperature rise and (b) normalized ICD for the saline, polymer-, and lipid-shelled MBs as the solution static in the vessel of the phantom when exposed by FUS at various acoustic power levels from 0.6–16.8 W with exposure for 5 s. The values shown are the average of five measures for each velocity, error bars show the standard deviation.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Statistical results of (a) temperature rise and (b) normalized ICD for the saline, polymer-, and lipid-shelled MB solution with varying flow velocities from 3–20 cm/s at an acoustic power 1.5 W for 5 s. The values shown are the average and standard deviation of five measures for each velocity.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Statistical results of (a) temperature rise and (b) normalized ICD for the saline, polymer-, and lipid-shelled MB solution with varying flow velocities from 3–20 cm/s at an acoustic power 5.7 W for 5 s. The values shown are the average and standard deviation of five measures for each velocity.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Statistical results of (a) temperature rise and (b) normalized ICD for the saline, polymer-, and lipid-shelled MB solution with varying flow velocities from 3–20 cm/s at acoustic power 11.1 W for 5 s. The values shown are the average and standard deviation of five measures for each velocity.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Measured temperature response of each exposure in front of the vessel for [(a) and (d)] the saline and [(b) and (e)] the polymer-, and [(c) and (f)] lipid-shelled MB solution static in (upper row) and flowing through the vessel of the phantom at flow velocities 5 cm/s (lower row), respectively. The FU focus was positioned in the middle of the vessel at the acoustic power 10 W with each exposure for 5 s.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Normalized ICD of each exposure for [(a) and (d)] the saline and [(b) and (e)] the polymer-, and [(c) and (f)] lipid-shelled MB solution static in (upper row) and flowing through the vessel of the phantom at flow velocities 5 cm/s (lower row), respectively. The FU focus was positioned in the middle of the vessel at the acoustic power 10 W with each exposure for 5 s. Temperature and cavitation data of each exposure in Figs. 7 and 8 were recorded simultaneously.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Acoustic powers and corresponding values of .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/6/10.1121/1.4714339
2012-06-14
2014-04-20
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Compare ultrasound-mediated heating and cavitation between flowing polymer- and lipid-shelled microbubbles during focused ultrasound exposures
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/131/6/10.1121/1.4714339
10.1121/1.4714339
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM