Contents: 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001

2013, 5

Thanh C. Nguyen, Loan T. Bui, Nghia H. Tran, Victor Frenkel

Calibrating therapeutic ultrasound transducers: corrections for the effects of acoustic cavitation and acoustic streaming

language: English

received 01.01.2013, published 19.06.2013

Download article (PDF, 266 kb, ZIP), use browser command "Save Target As..."
To read this document you need Adobe Acrobat © Reader software, which is simple to use and available at no cost. Use version 4.0 or higher. You can download software from Adobe site (


Commercial ultrasound power meters based on the radiation force technique are ubiquitously used in both the clinic and in laboratory settings for calibrating therapeutic ultrasound transducers. Despite their popularity, these devices are inherently inaccurate in that they do not compensate for the effects of acoustic cavitation and acoustic streaming. These factors can alter the displacement generated on the meter’s target, and hence the power being sensed. In the present study we built a low cost power meter comprised of a non-reflecting target suspended from an analytical balance in a water tank. Investigations in to the effects of cavitation and streaming were performed, where the former was shown to significantly lower the measured power and the latter was shown to increase it. Both effects were found to be proportional to the applied power as predicted by theory. A modified device was then constructed, where an acoustic permeable membrane was positioned directly over the target and shown to effectively eliminate the streaming effect. For the effects of cavitation, a pair of ultrasound transmitting and receiving transducers was positioned across the beam path, and custom software automatically calculated the attenuation coefficient of the water in the beam column. This was then used to correct for the attenuating effect of cavitation on the power being measured. In addition to correcting for sources of error associated with commercial devices, the setup can easily be constructed for a much lower cost using existing, off-the-shelve components found typically in the laboratory environment. The system may also be employed for research on the effects of water borne phenomena associated with the application of ultrasound in a fluid medium.

Key words: therapeutic ultrasound; calibration; radiation force balance; acoustic cavitation; attenuation; acoustic streaming.

15 pages, 7 figures

Сitation: Thanh C Nguyen, Loan T Bui, Nghia H Tran, Victor Frenkel. Calibrating therapeutic ultrasound transducers: corrections for the effects of acoustic cavitation and acoustic streaming. Electronic Journal “Technical Acoustics”,, 2013, 5.


1. Frenkel V (2008) Ultrasound mediated delivery of drugs and genes to solid tumors. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60(10):1193-1208.
2. Ferrari CB, Andrade MA, Adamowski JC, & Guirro RR (2010) Evaluation of therapeutic ultrasound equipment performance. Ultrasonics 50(7):704-709.
3. Zeqiri B (2007) Metrology for ultrasonic applications. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 93(1 3):138-152.
4. Lewin PA (2010) Nonlinear Acoustics in Ultrasound Metrology and other Selected Applications. Phys Procedia 3(1):17-23.
5. Harris GR, Preston RC, & Dereggi AS (2000) The impact of piezoelectric PVDF on medical ultrasound exposure measurements, standards, and regulations. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 47(6):1321-1335.
6. Bindal VN, Singh VR, & Singh G (1980) Acoustic power measurement of medical ultrasonic probes using a strain gauge technique. Ultrasonics 18(1):28-32.
7. Patel PR, et al. (2008) In vitro and in vivo evaluations of increased effective beam width for heat deposition using a split focus high intensity ultrasound (HIFU) transducer. Int J Hyperthermia:1-13.
8. King RL, et al. (2011) Development and characterization of a tissue-mimicking material for high-intensity focused ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 58(7):1397-1405.
9. Maruvada S, Harris GR, Herman BA, & King RL (2007) Acoustic power calibration of high-intensity focused ultrasound transducers using a radiation force technique. J Acoust Soc Am 121(3):1434-1439.
10. Nightingale KR, Nightingale RW, Palmeri ML, & Trahey GE (2000) A finite element model of remote palpation of breast lesions using radiation force: factors affecting tissue displacement. Ultrason Imaging 22(1):35-54.
11. O'Brien WD, Jr. (2007) Ultrasound-biophysics mechanisms. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 93(1-3):212-255.
12. Lewin PA, Barrie-Smith N, Ide M, Hynynen K, & Macdonald M (2003) Interlaboratory acoustic power measurement. J Ultrasound Med 22(2):207-213.
13. Muttakin I, et al. (2011) Low cost design of precision medical ultrasound power measurement system. Int'l J Circuits Sys Signal Proc 5(6):672-682.
14. Miller DL, et al. (2008) Bioeffects considerations for diagnostic ultrasound contrast agents. J Ultrasound Med 27(4):611-632; quiz 633-616.
15. Kikuchi T, Sato S, & Yoshioka M (2004) Quantitative Estimation of Acoustic Streaming Effects on Ultrasonic Power Measurement. IEEE UFFC:2197-2200.
16. Frenkel V, Kimmel E, & Iger Y (1999) Ultrasound-induced cavitation damage to external epithelia of fish skin. Ultrasound Med Biol 25(8):1295-1303.
17. O'Neill BE, et al. (2009) Pulsed high intensity focused ultrasound mediated nanoparticle delivery: mechanisms and efficacy in murine muscle. Ultrasound Med Biol 35(3):416-424.
18. Lele PP (1980) Induction of deep, local hyperthermia by ultrasound and electromagnetic fields: problems and choices. Radiat Environ Biophys 17(3):205-217.
19. Johns LD, Straub SJ, & Howard SM (2007) Analysis of effective radiating area, power, intensity, and field characteristics of ultrasound transducers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88(1):124-129.
20. Kimmel E (2006) Cavitation bioeffects. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 34(2):105-161.
21. Duraiswami R, Prabhukumar S, & Chahine GL (1998) Bubble counting using an inverse acoustic scattering method. J Acoust Soc Am 104(5):2699-2717.
22. Apfel RE & Holland CK (1991) Gauging the likelihood of cavitation from short-pulse, low-duty cycle diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 17(2):179-185.
23. Frenkel V, Kimmel E, & Iger Y (2000) Ultrasound-induced intercellular space widening in fish epidermis. Ultrasound Med Biol 26(3):473-480.
24. Hill CR (1971) Ultrasonic exposure thresholds for changes in cells and tissues. J Acoust Soc Am 52(2):667-672.
25. Nomura S & Nakagawa M (2001) Analysis of an ultrasonic field attenuated by oscillating cavitation bubbles. Acoust Sci & Tech 22(4):283-291.
26. Barnett SB, et al. (1994) Current status of research on biophysical effects of ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 20(3):205-218.
27. Nightingale KR & Trahey GE (2000) A finite element model for simulating acoustic streaming in cystic breast lesions with experimental validation. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 47(1):201-214.
28. Shi X, Martin RW, Vaezy S, & Crum LA (2002) Quantitative investigation of acoustic streaming in blood. J Acoust Soc Am 111(2):1110-1121.
29. Soo MS, et al. (2006) Streaming detection for evaluation of indeterminate sonographic breast masses: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(5):1335-1341.
30. Nightingale KR, Kornguth PJ, & Trahey GE (1999) The use of acoustic streaming in breast lesion diagnosis: a clinical study. Ultrasound Med Biol 25(1):75-87.
31. Frenkel V, Gurka R, Liberzon A, Shavit U, & Kimmel E (2001) Preliminary investigations of ultrasound induced acoustic streaming using particle image velocimetry. Ultrasonics 39(3):153-156.
32. Campbell M, Cosgrove JA, Greated CA, Jack S, & J.D. R (2000) Review of LDA and PIV applied to the measurement of sound and acoustic streaming. Optics Laser Tech 32:629-639.


Thanh C. Nguyen received his Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering (EE) in 2013 from the Catholic University of America (CUA) in Washington, DC. He is presently working at the Center for Planning and Information Technology at CUA, and has applied to do his Masters degree at the University in EE, focusing on Network Security.

е-mail: 32nguyen(at)


Loan T. Bui received her Bachelors degree in Biomedical Engineering (BE) in 2012 at the Catholic University of America (CUA) in Washington, DC. She is currently pursuing a PhD in BE, and working as a research assistant at the University of Texas at Arlington.

е-mail: lbui(at)


Nghia H. Tran received both his Bachelors and Masters degrees in 2012 in Electrical Engineering (EE) at the Catholic University of America (CUA) in Washington, DC. He is presently pursuing his PhD in EE at CUA, where his research focuses on electromagnetic scattering and remote sensing.

е-mail: 16tran(at)


Victor Frenkel received his Bachelors degree in Agriculture in 1991 from the Hebrew University in Rehovot, Israel. He then completed his Masters in Life Sciences in 1995 at Tel Aviv University in Tel Aviv, Israel, and his PhD in 1999 in Agricultural Engineering at the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, in Haifa, Israel. He spent the next four years as a senior post-doctoral fellow at the University of Maryland’s Biotechnology Institute in Baltimore, MD. This was followed by eight as years as a staff scientist at the Dept. of Radiology and Imaging Sciences at the Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD. He is presently an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Catholic University’s School of Engineering in Washington, DC. Dr. Frenkel’s research is in the field of therapeutic ultrasound, where his interests range from ultrasound induced bio-effects to devices and novel methodologies to evaluate them.

е-mail: frenkel(at)