Skip to main content
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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1. M. Strasberg, “ The Pulsation frequency of nonspherical gas bubbles in liquids,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25, 536537 (1953).
2. S. Howkins, “ Measurements of resonant frequency of a bubble near a rigid boundary,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 37, 504508 (1965).
3. F. Villanueva, R. Jankowski, S. Klibanov, M. Pina, S. Alber, S. Watkins, G. Brandenburger, and W. Wagner, “ Microbubbles targeted to intercellular adhesion molecule-1 bind to activated coronary artery endothelial cells,” Circulation 98, 15 (1998).
4. A. A. Doinikov, L. Aired, and A. Bouakaz, “ Acoustic scattering from a contrast agent microbubble near an elastic wall of finite thickness,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 69516967 (2011).
5. A. A. Doinikov, L. Aired, and A. Bouakaz, “ Dynamics of a contrast agent microbubble attached to an elastic wall,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 31, 654662 (2012).
6. T. A. Hay, Y. A. Ilinskii, E. A. Zabolotskaya, and M. F. Hamilton, “ Model for bubble pulsation in liquid between parallel viscoelastic layers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132, 124137 (2012).
7. S. Qin and K. Ferrara, “ Acoustic response of compliable microvessels containing ultrasound contrast agents,” Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 50655088 (2006).
8. L. Aired, A. A. Doinikov, and A. Bouakaz, “ Effect of an elastic wall on the dynamics of an encapsulated microbubble: A simulation study,” Ultrasonics 53, 2328 (2013).
9. V. Garbin, D. Cojoc, E. Ferrari, E. Di Fabrizio, M. L. J. Overvelde, S. M. van der Meer, N. de Jong, D. Lohse, and M. Versluis, “ Changes in microbubble dynamics near a boundary revealed by combined optical micromanipulation and high-speed imaging,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 114103 (2007).
10. M. Overvelde, “ Ultrasound contrast agents: Dynamics of coated bubbles,” PhD. dissertation, Physics of Fluids, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 2010.
11. B. L. Helfield, B. Y. C. Leung, and D. E. Goertz, “ The effect of boundary proximity on the response of individual ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles,” Phys. Med. Biol. 59, 17211745 (2014).
12. B. L. Helfield, E. Cherin, F. S. Foster, and D. E. Goertz, “ The effect of binding on the subharmonic emissions from individual lipid-encapsulated microbubbles at transmit frequencies of 11 and 25 MHz,” Ultrasound Med. Biol. 39, 345359 (2013).
13. P. Marmottant, S. van der Meer, M. Emmer, M. Versluis, N. de Jong, S. Hilgenfeldt, and D. Lohse, “ A model for large amplitude oscillations of coated bubbles accounting for buckling and rupture,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 34993505 (2005).
14. M. Overvelde, V. Garbin, J. Sijl, B. Dollet, N. de Jong, D. Lohse, and M. Versluis, “ Nonlinear shell behavior of phospholipid-coated microbubbles,” Ultrasound Med. Biol. 36, 20802092 (2010).
15. J. Sijl, M. Overvelde, B. Dollet, V. Garbin, N. de Jong, D. Lohse, and M. Versluis, “ ‘Compression-only’ behavior: A second-order nonlinear response of ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129, 17291739 (2011).
16. B. L. Helfield and D. E. Goertz, “ Nonlinear resonance behavior and linear shell estimates for Definity™ and MicroMarker™ assessed with acoustic microbubble spectroscopy,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133, 11581168 (2013).
17. A. Katiyar and K. Sarkar, “ Excitation threshold for subharmonic generation from contrast microbubbles,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 31373147 (2011).
18. M. Lipp, K. Lee, D. Takamoto, J. Zasadzinski, and A. Waring, “ Coexistence of buckled and flat monolayers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 16501653 (1998).
19. S. Paul, A. Katiyar, K. Sarkar, D. Chatterjee, W. T. Shi, and F. Forsberg, “ Material characterization of the encapsulation of an ultrasound contrast microbubble and its subharmonic response: Strain-softening interfacial elasticity model,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 38463857 (2010).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



The proximity of a solid-liquid boundary has been theoretically predicted to affect nonlinear microbubble emissions, but to date there has been no experimental validation of this effect. In this study, individual microbubbles ( = 15) were insonicated at  = 11 MHz as a function of offset distance from a compliant (agarose) planar boundary by employing an optical trapping apparatus. It was found that fundamental scattering increases while subharmonic scattering decreases as the microbubble approaches the boundary. Although a microbubble-boundary model can predict the qualitative trends observed for a subset of encapsulation properties, further modeling efforts are required to completely model compliant boundary-microbubble interactions.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd