The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Jo

1927

DOI: 10.1080/14786440908564348

|View full text |Cite

|

Sign up to set email alerts

|

XXXVIII.The physical and biological effects of high-frequency sound-waves of great intensity

Alfred L. Loomis²

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Introduction2

A Brief History1

History and Evolution Of Ultrasonic Instruments1

Biological Interactions Of Us1

Citation Types

Supporting

1

Mentioning

202

Contrasting

0

Unclassified

8

Year Published

1951

1951

2017

2017

Publication Types

Select...

Article5

Other5

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent10

Authors

Journals

Cited by 641 publications

(227 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

1

Mentioning

202

Contrasting

0

Unclassified

8

Order By: Relevance

“…Another decade passed before a more detailed, experimental study was conducted (Wood and Loomis, 1927) to investigate Langevin's (1917) observation. Although the ultrasonic levels were not specified, their experimental studies showed that ultrasonic energy had a range of effects from rupture of Spirogyra and Paramecium to death of small fishes and frogs by a 1-2-min exposure, the latter also observed by Langevin with a Poulsen arc oscillator.…”

Section: A Brief Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound–biophysics mechanisms

¹

2007

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultrasonic biophysics is the study of mechanisms responsible for how ultrasound and biological materials interact. Ultrasound-induced bioeffect or risk studies focus on issues related to the effects of ultrasound on biological materials. On the other hand, when biological materials affect the ultrasonic wave, this can be viewed as the basis for diagnostic ultrasound. Thus, an understanding of the interaction of ultrasound with tissue provides the scientific basis for image production and risk assessment. Relative to the bioeffect or risk studies, that is, the biophysical mechanisms by which ultrasound affects biological materials, ultrasound-induced bioeffects are generally separated into thermal and nonthermal mechanisms. Ultrasonic dosimetry is concerned with the quantitative determination of ultrasonic energy interaction with biological materials. Whenever ultrasonic energy is propagated into an attenuating material such as tissue, the amplitude of the wave decreases with distance. This attenuation is due to either absorption or scattering. Absorption is a mechanism that represents that portion of ultrasonic wave that is converted into heat, and scattering can be thought of as that portion of the wave, which changes direction. Because the medium can absorb energy to produce heat, a temperature rise may occur as long as the rate of heat production is greater than the rate of heat removal. Current interest with thermally mediated ultrasound-induced bioeffects has focused on the thermal isoeffect concept. The non-thermal mechanism that has received the most attention is acoustically generated cavitation wherein ultrasonic energy by cavitation bubbles is concentrated. Acoustic cavitation, in a broad sense, refers to ultrasonically induced bubble activity occurring in a biological material that contains pre-existing gaseous inclusions. Cavitation-related mechanisms include radiation force, microstreaming, shock waves, free radicals, microjets and strain. It is more challenging to deduce the causes of mechanical effects in tissues that do not contain gas bodies. These ultrasonic biophysics mechanisms will be discussed in the context of diagnostic ultrasound exposure risk concerns.

“…Another decade passed before a more detailed, experimental study was conducted (Wood and Loomis, 1927) to investigate Langevin's (1917) observation. Although the ultrasonic levels were not specified, their experimental studies showed that ultrasonic energy had a range of effects from rupture of Spirogyra and Paramecium to death of small fishes and frogs by a 1-2-min exposure, the latter also observed by Langevin with a Poulsen arc oscillator.…”

Section: A Brief Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound–biophysics mechanisms

¹

2007

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultrasonic biophysics is the study of mechanisms responsible for how ultrasound and biological materials interact. Ultrasound-induced bioeffect or risk studies focus on issues related to the effects of ultrasound on biological materials. On the other hand, when biological materials affect the ultrasonic wave, this can be viewed as the basis for diagnostic ultrasound. Thus, an understanding of the interaction of ultrasound with tissue provides the scientific basis for image production and risk assessment. Relative to the bioeffect or risk studies, that is, the biophysical mechanisms by which ultrasound affects biological materials, ultrasound-induced bioeffects are generally separated into thermal and nonthermal mechanisms. Ultrasonic dosimetry is concerned with the quantitative determination of ultrasonic energy interaction with biological materials. Whenever ultrasonic energy is propagated into an attenuating material such as tissue, the amplitude of the wave decreases with distance. This attenuation is due to either absorption or scattering. Absorption is a mechanism that represents that portion of ultrasonic wave that is converted into heat, and scattering can be thought of as that portion of the wave, which changes direction. Because the medium can absorb energy to produce heat, a temperature rise may occur as long as the rate of heat production is greater than the rate of heat removal. Current interest with thermally mediated ultrasound-induced bioeffects has focused on the thermal isoeffect concept. The non-thermal mechanism that has received the most attention is acoustically generated cavitation wherein ultrasonic energy by cavitation bubbles is concentrated. Acoustic cavitation, in a broad sense, refers to ultrasonically induced bubble activity occurring in a biological material that contains pre-existing gaseous inclusions. Cavitation-related mechanisms include radiation force, microstreaming, shock waves, free radicals, microjets and strain. It is more challenging to deduce the causes of mechanical effects in tissues that do not contain gas bodies. These ultrasonic biophysics mechanisms will be discussed in the context of diagnostic ultrasound exposure risk concerns.

“…Ultrasonic machining was initially described by Loomis in 1927 (Nishimura, 1954;Neppiras, 1956). In the same year, Wood and Loomis (1927) reported the first systematic investigation of biological effects of ultrasound. They used the piezoelectric effect developed by Langevin in 1917 for locating submarines by the echo of a narrow beam of high frequency sound waves (Langevin and Ishimoto, 1923).…”

Section: History and Evolution Of Ultrasonic Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

High-power low-frequency ultrasound: A review of tissue dissection and ablation in medicine and surgery

¹

,

²

,

et al. 2008

Journal of Materials Processing Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ab s t r a c t High-power low-frequency ultrasound in the range 20-60 kHz has wide ranging clinical applications in surgical and medical instruments for biological tissue cutting, ablation or fragmentation, and removal. Despite widespread clinical application and common device operating characteristics, there is an incomplete understanding of the mechanism of tissue failure, removal and damage. The relative contribution of cavitation, direct mechanical impact and thermal effects to each process for specific tissue types remains unclear. Different and distinct mechanisms and rates of tissue removal are observed for interaction with soft and hard tissue types. Device operating parameters known to affect the interaction include frequency, peak-peak tip amplitude, suction and application time. To date, there has been little analysis of the effect of variations in, and interactions of, these parameters on tissue removal and damage for individual biological tissue types. Potential controllable damage mechanisms occurring in tissues include alteration in global biomechanical properties, histomorphological changes, protein denaturation and tissue necrosis. This paper presents a critical review of the literature on the clinical application, mechanism of tissue interaction, removal and residual tissue damage. It describes known mechanisms for distinct tissue types.

“…If a wound does not follow the normal model of healing which extends almost up to 6 weeks, it is considered a chronic wound. [30,31] Therapeutic US waves are physical method delivering nonionizing radiation in the form of mechanical sound waves into the tissues to produce heat within the tissue.…”

Section: Biological Interactions Of Usmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Ultrasound (US) waves have unique characteristics that making them promising option for treatment of different soft tissue injuries particularly wounds. The mechanisms of actions of this technique in the treatment of soft tissue are not fully understood. This paper aimed to comprehensively review the biological interactions and mechanism of action of US waves in the treatment of chronic wounds. Methods: The databases of PubMed (1990PubMed ( -2016, EMBASE (1990EMBASE ( -2016, Web of Sciences (1990), and Google Scholar (1980 were searched using the set terms "US waves" and "wound treatment," "mechanism of action" and "soft tissue injuries," and "biologi8cal interaction." The title and abstract of the collected results were reviewed by two authors, and the relevant papers were selected for further evaluations. Results: The mechanisms of action depend on the US physical parameters as well as exposure factors including duration and injury type. The main mechanisms of US waves for wound healing are enhancing the rate of inflammatory phase, stimulating fibroblasts to secrete collagen, enhancing extensibility of collagen, circulation, pain threshold, enzymatic activity, permeability of cell membrane, and accelerating nerve conduction. Conclusion: The therapeutic effects of US depend on dose (W/cm 2 ) and dosage (frequency of application). Low US frequencies show more therapeutic efficiency in wound healing compared with high frequencies.

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Product

Browser Extension Assistant by scite Citation Statement Search Reference Check Visualizations Dashboards Explore Journals Explore Organizations Explore Funders Embedding Badge Embedding Citation Search Pricing

Resources

Blog Help & FAQ Accessibility Statement API Terms For Universities & Governments For Researchers For Publishers For Corporate, Pharma & Enterprise Author Marketing Become an Affiliate Get an organization trial or quote scite Data & Services

About

News & Press Careers Read our Paper Coverage

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.