Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 362

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Mechanisms of contrast agent destruction

Chomas, J.E., Dayton, P., Allen, J., Morgan, K., Ferrara, K.W.·2001·IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control

Abstract

Various applications of contrast-assisted ultrasound, including blood vessel detection, perfusion estimation, and drug delivery, require controlled destruction of contrast agent microbubbles. The lifetime of a bubble depends on properties of the bubble shell, the gas core, and the acoustic waveform impinging on the bubble. Three mechanisms of microbubble destruction are considered: fragmentation, acoustically driven diffusion, and static diffusion. Fragmentation is responsible for rapid destruction of contrast agents on a time scale of microseconds. The primary characteristics of fragmentation are a very large expansion and subsequent contraction, resulting in instability of the bubble. Optical studies using a novel pulsed-laser optical system show the expansion and contraction of ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles with the ratio of maximum diameter to minimum diameter greater than 10. Fragmentation is dependent on the transmission pressure, occurring in over 55% of bubbles insonified with a peak negative transmission pressure of 2.4 MPa and in less than 10% of bubbles insonified with a peak negative transmission pressure of 0.8 MPa. The echo received from a bubble decorrelates significantly within two pulses when the bubble is fragmented, creating an opportunity for rapid detection of bubbles via a decorrelation-based analysis. Preliminary findings with a mouse tumor model verify the occurrence of fragmentation in vivo. A much slower mechanism of bubble destruction is diffusion, which is driven by both a concentration gradient between the concentration of gas in the bubble compared with the concentration of gas in the liquid, as well as convective effects of motion of the gas-liquid interface. The rate of diffusion increases during insonation, because of acoustically driven diffusion, producing changes in diameter on the time scale of the acoustic pulse length, thus, on the order of microseconds. Gas bubbles diffuse while they are not being insonified, termed static diffusion. An air bubble with initial diameter of 2 microns in water at 37 degrees C is predicted to fully dissolve within 25 ms. Clinical ultrasound contrast agents are often designed with a high molecular weight core in an attempt to decrease the diffusion rate. C3F8 and C4F10 gas bubbles of the same size are predicted to fully dissolve within 400 ms and 4000 ms, respectively. Optical experiments involving gas diffusion of a contrast agent support the theoretical predictions; however, shelled agents diffuse at a much slower rate without insonation, on the order of minutes to hours. Shell properties play a significant role in the rate of static diffusion by blocking the gas-liquid interface and decreasing the transport of gas into the surrounding liquid. Static diffusion decreases the diameter of albumin-shelled agents to a greater extent than lipid-shelled agents after insonation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/58.896136

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 362

Metadata

Authors
Chomas, J. E., Dayton, P., Allen, J., Morgan, K., & Ferrara, K. W.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control
Published
2001
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
232-248
ISSN
0885-3010 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2146555464
Cited by
362
References
0
FWCI
17.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mechanisms of contrast agent destruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/58.896136
The paper
Chomas, J. E., Dayton, P., Allen, J., Morgan, K., & Ferrara, K. W. (2001). Mechanisms of contrast agent destruction. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control. https://doi.org/10.1109/58.896136

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.