This paper is based on material presented at the start of a Health Protection Agency meeting on ultrasound and infrasound. In answering the question 'what is ultrasound?', it shows that the simple description of a wave which transports mechanical energy through the local vibration of particles at frequencies of 20 kHz or more, with no net transport of the particles themselves, can in every respect be misleading or even incorrect. To explain the complexities responsible for this, the description of ultrasound is first built up from the fundamental properties of these local particle vibrations. This progresses through an exposition of the characteristics of linear waves, in order to explain the propensity for, and properties of, the nonlinear propagation which occurs in many practical ultrasonic fields. Given the Health Protection environment which framed the original presentation, explanation and examples are given of how these complexities affect issues of practical importance. These issues include the measurement and description of fields and exposures, and the ability of ultrasound to affect tissue (through microstreaming, streaming, cavitation, heating, etc.). It is noted that there are two very distinct regimes, in terms of wave characteristics and potential for bioeffect. The first concerns the use of ultrasound in liquids/solids, for measurement or material processing. For biomedical applications (where these two processes are termed diagnosis and therapy, respectively), the issue of hazard has been studied in depth, although this has not been done to such a degree for industrial uses of ultrasound in liquids/solids (sonar, non-destructive testing, ultrasonic processing etc.). However, in the second regime, that of the use of ultrasound in air, although the waves in question tend to be of much lower intensities than those used in liquids/solids, there is a greater mismatch between the extent to which hazard has been studied, and the growth in commercial applications for airborne ultrasound.

No abstract

New measurements indicate that the public are being exposed, without their knowledge, to airborne ultrasound. Existing guidelines are insufficient for such exposures; the vast majority refers to occupational exposure only (where workers are aware of the exposure, can be monitored and can wear protection). Existing guidelines are based on an insufficient evidence base, most of which was collected over 40 years ago by researchers who themselves considered it insufficient to finalize guidelines, but which produced preliminary guidelines. This warning of inadequacy was lost as nations and organizations issued ‘new’ guidelines based on these early guidelines, and through such repetition generated a false impression of consensus. The evidence base is so slim that few reports have progressed far along the sequence from anecdote to case study, to formal scientific controlled trials and epidemiological studies. Early studies reported hearing threshold shifts, nausea, headache, fatigue, migraine and tinnitus, but there is insufficient research on human subjects, and insufficient measurement of fields, to assess what health risk current occupational and public exposures might produce. Furthermore, the assumptions underpinning audiology and physical measurements at high frequencies must be questioned: simple extrapolation of approaches used at lower frequencies does not address current unknowns. Recommendations are provided.

No abstract

No abstract