Attenuation of an Ultrasound Contrast Agent Estimated from Transient Solution of Linearized Rayleigh-Plesset Equation

Lang Xia

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 17 references

Attenuation of an Ultrasound Contrast Agent Estimated from Transient Solution of Linearized Rayleigh-Plesset Equation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Short-pulse ultrasound overestimates microbubble attenuation because the bubbles never ring up to steady state before the pulse ends.

desk verdict A plausible transient-correction formula for UCA attenuation, but the application to broadband data conflates time-domain ring-up with the steady-state transfer function and likely overstates the shell-parameter correction. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07663 v1 pith:EMXOQTYC submitted 2019-08-21 physics.flu-dyn

Lang Xia This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.flu-dyn

keywords ultrasoundcontrastagentsmicrobubbleslinearizedRayleigh-Plessetequationtransientoscillationacousticattenuationextinctioncross-sectiondilatationalviscositypulseduration

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Ultrasound contrast agents are coated microbubbles whose shell properties are usually extracted by comparing measured attenuation of a short ultrasound pulse with a theoretical curve that assumes the bubble has reached steady-state oscillation. This paper argues that clinical and laboratory pulses are often too short for the bubble to ring up, so the standard curve overestimates attenuation near resonance. Including the transient part of the linearized Rayleigh-Plesset solution lowers the predicted attenuation peak to about two-thirds of the steady-state value and shifts it to the damped resonance frequency. When the new formula is fitted to published attenuation data, the inferred shell dilatational viscosity drops by roughly a factor of three and the elasticity rises slightly. The practical claim is that shell characterization with steady-state formulas misreads shell physics when the interrogation pulse is short.

What carries the argument

The central object is the linearized Rayleigh-Plesset equation written as a forced, damped harmonic oscillator, $\ddot{X}+2\delta\omega_0\dot{X}+\omega_0^2X=F\cos(\omega t)$, whose complete solution is the sum of a steady-state response and a decaying transient at the damped frequency $\omega_d=\omega_0\sqrt{1-\delta^2}$. The argument is carried by Eq. (15), the time-averaged extinction cross-section of the full solution over $N$ drive cycles, with $N=2\ln(10)/(\pi\delta)$ chosen as the number of periods required for the transient to decay to 1% of its initial amplitude; the paper notes that in a pulse-echo measurement the integration period should be the pulse duration. Substituting only the steady-state solution into the same energy integral yields the standard attenuation formula as a special case, so Eq. (15) is the general statement and the steady-state formula is its long-pulse limit.

What would settle it

Use a monodisperse UCA suspension and measure attenuation at a fixed frequency near resonance with identical peak pressure but different pulse durations (for example, 0.2, 0.5, 1 and 5 µs). Eq. (15) predicts the attenuation coefficient falls with pulse duration and the peak is about two-thirds of the steady-state value for very short pulses; the steady-state formula predicts no dependence on pulse length. If the measured attenuation shows no systematic pulse-length dependence, the central correction is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that for a UCA driven by a short tone burst, the acoustic attenuation should be computed from the full solution of the damped driven oscillator—steady-state part plus decaying transient—rather than from the steady-state response alone. The full solution behaves differently only while the transient is alive; for typical lipid-shell parameters and a transducer pulse around 0.4 µs, the bubble has not yet rung up before the pressure ends. Within this transient window, the extinction cross-section—the energy a bubble removes from the sound field per unit incident intensity—is reduced, with the resonance peak falling to roughly 2/3 of the steady-state peak and moving to the damped resonance frequency. Fitting the transient-corrected formula to measured attenuation gives a dilatational viscosity of $0.62 \times 10^{-8}\,\mathrm{N\,s/m}$ and an elasticity of $0.45\,\mathrm{N/m}$, versus $1.97 \times 10^{-8}\,\mathrm{N\,s/m}$ and $0.40\,\mathrm{N/m}$ from the steady-state formula; the viscosity change is large enough that predictions of nonlinear UCA dynamics would differ.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's correction assumes that a short-pulse attenuation measurement corresponds to the time-averaged energy absorption of a single-frequency forced oscillator over the pulse duration, with the number of effective cycles set by the damping constant; if attenuation is instead extracted from the frequency spectrum of a broadband pulse, the steady-state response may already govern and the correction would not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Short-pulse attenuation data for UCAs should be fitted with Eq. (15); otherwise the fitted dilatational viscosity is roughly three times too large for typical lipid-shell bubbles.
The observed resonance peak in short-pulse attenuation will sit below the undamped resonance frequency; treating that downshift as a change in shell elasticity conflates a ring-up artifact with a material property.
Shell parameters inferred with the steady-state formula may mispredict nonlinear bubble behavior, such as subharmonic and ultraharmonic emission amplitudes.
For long pulses or continuous-wave excitation the transient correction vanishes and the two formulas agree, so the correction matters only when the pulse duration is comparable to or shorter than the ring-up time.
Attenuation coefficients become pulse-duration dependent: the same suspension can appear to attenuate differently with different transducers unless the transient contribution is modeled.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If attenuation data are reduced by spectral analysis of a broadband pulse, the frequency-dependent attenuation may be governed by the steady-state transfer function rather than by the single-frequency ring-up transient; Eq. (15)'s correction would then not apply to those experiments.
The factor-of-three viscosity shift implies that published shell parameters obtained with steady-state formulas from broadband data may be systematically high; re-fitting existing datasets with Eq. (15) could revise them.
The same transient-averaging idea could be extended to scattering cross-sections and to nonlinear diagnostics by convolving the forced-oscillator response with the actual pulse envelope, giving a testable prediction that attenuation near resonance should decrease monotonically with pulse shortening.
A decisive check would be to measure attenuation of a monodisperse UCA suspension at fixed frequency and pressure while varying only pulse length; Eq. (15) predicts a measurable drop, whereas the steady-state formula predicts none.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Lang Xia's short paper makes a claim that could matter: when you measure attenuation of UCA suspensions with short pulses, the bubble may not have rung up to steady state, so the standard Medwin formula overestimates attenuation near resonance. The derived Eq. (15) is a compact approximation for attenuation including transient effects, and the paper is honest that the underlying oscillator physics is old. Its own Figure 2 shows the peak dropping to about 2/3 and shifting to the damped resonance frequency. The math within the oscillator model is standard, and the approximation error relative to the full solution is less than 8%. That part is fine.

The issue is the bridge between Eq. (15) and the attenuation data. Eq. (15) integrates over N periods, where N is defined by the decay of the transient to 1% (N = 2ln10/(πδ)). Then the paper says "the period should be the pulse duration in a pulse-echo system." Those two statements are incompatible. N defined via the damping constant is typically many cycles for the fitted parameters, while the 2.25 MHz transducer used in the fitted data has a pulse duration of about one cycle. The integration window itself depends on the very shell viscosity being fitted, which creates a self-consistency problem.

More fundamentally, broadband attenuation measurements are obtained from the spectral ratio of received pulses. For a linear time-invariant suspension, the frequency-dependent attenuation is governed by the steady-state transfer function (Medwin or Commander-Prosperetti). The ring-up transient is the time-domain manifestation of that same transfer function; it does not supply an additional reduction at resonance once you do the spectral analysis. So the factor-of-three change in dilatational viscosity in Table 1 depends on a measurement model the paper does not defend. If the claim were restricted to true tone-burst energy measurements, Eq. (15) would be a legitimate extension. But the paper applies it to broadband experiments, and that is where it falls down.

The paper also does not compare with the Clarke-Leighton transient cross-section formula, even though it cites it; it provides no error bars on the fitted parameters and no independent validation. Those are real but softer gaps.

Who should read it: people who characterize UCA shells from attenuation data, and anyone thinking about pulse-duration effects in linear oscillator models. It is a short, clear paper that raises a legitimate concern, but the central application needs rethinking. I would not cite it as it stands, but I would ask the authors to resubmit after clarifying the measurement model, restricting claims to tone-burst measurements or deriving the spectral version, and validating on at least two datasets. The idea deserves serious referee attention.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript revisits the standard practice of estimating the attenuation of ultrasound contrast agent (UCA) suspensions from the linearized Rayleigh-Plesset equation, which is usually treated as a driven harmonic oscillator in steady state (Medwin's formula). The author argues that for short-pulse interrogation, the transient (ring-up) part of the oscillator solution is not negligible and that its inclusion lowers the predicted attenuation peak to about two-thirds of the steady-state value and shifts the peak to the damped resonance frequency. A new formula, Eq. (15), is proposed for attenuation including transient contributions, and it is fitted to the broadband attenuation data of Xia et al. (2015). This fitting yields substantially different shell parameters, in particular a dilatational viscosity that is about three times smaller than that obtained with Medwin's formula. The paper concludes that steady-state attenuation formulas can mis-estimate UCA shell properties when short pulses are used.

Significance. If the central claim were fully validated, the paper would have practical value for UCA material characterization: it predicts that shell dilatational viscosities inferred from short-pulse attenuation data could be overestimated by a factor of about three, which would affect subsequent modeling of UCA dynamics. The analytical treatment of the damped oscillator is standard and the paper is clearly written, but the practical significance rests entirely on the validity of Eq. (15) as a model for the measured attenuation. That link is not established in the present manuscript, and the comparison with broadband pulse-echo data is problematic. The paper also does not compare against the existing Clarke-Leighton time-dependent cross-section formulation, which is the established treatment of the same transient effect. As a result, the contribution is presently more of an interesting research note than a fully supported method for shell parameter estimation.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eq. (15)] The derivation of Eq. (15) is not verifiable as presented. The text says that substituting R(t)=R0+X(t) into Eq. (12) and neglecting 'all the second order terms' yields Eq. (15), but the displayed equation appears to contain a term proportional to the integral of X(t) cos(ωt) dt, which is itself second order in the acoustic amplitude. Please give a transparent step-by-step derivation from Eq. (12) to Eq. (15), explicitly state which terms are retained and which are neglected, and define every symbol and integration limit in the displayed formula.
[Section III, definition of N] The definition of N in Eq. (15) is self-referential and inconsistent with the stated pulse-echo application. N is defined as the number of periods for the transient to decay to 1%, i.e., N=2ln(10)/(πδ), where δ is the oscillator damping constant that includes the shell dilatational viscosity κ_s being fitted. The immediately following sentence, 'Note that the period should be the pulse duration in a pulse-echo system,' prescribes an independent, measured pulse duration. These two prescriptions are incompatible. For the 2.25 MHz transducer cited in the paper, the pulse duration is roughly 0.44 µs (about one acoustic cycle), whereas the decay-based N for the fitted damping is many cycles. Please specify which N is used in the fits of Table 1 and analyze the sensitivity of the fitted parameters to this choice.
[Section III and Figure 4] The central application to the broadband attenuation data of Xia et al. (2015) is not justified. Those data were acquired with broadband transducers and are typically obtained from spectral ratios of received pulses, so for a linear time-invariant suspension the frequency-dependent attenuation is governed by the steady-state transfer function of the bubbly medium. The ring-up transient is the time-domain manifestation of that same transfer function and does not provide an additional one-third reduction in the measured attenuation at resonance. The author must either derive how spectral-ratio attenuation measurements relate to the time-averaged energy absorption of Eq. (15), or restrict the claim to true tone-burst energy measurements and remove or reinterpret the fit to Xia et al. data. As written, Table 1 and Figure 4 do not support the conclusion that the shell dilatational viscosity is a factor of three lower than previously estimated.
[Table 1 and Section III] The factor-of-three change in dilatational viscosity is the main quantitative claim, yet Table 1 reports no uncertainty estimates, no goodness-of-fit measures, and no residuals for either model. Please report confidence intervals (e.g., from a covariance analysis or bootstrap) and show the fit residuals over the frequency range used. In addition, the paper does not compare Eq. (15) with the Clarke-Leighton (2000) time-dependent cross-section formula, which already addresses the same transient effect; such a comparison would clarify what the new formula adds and would provide a sanity check on the magnitude of the predicted reduction.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The abstract uses 'shot-pulse ultrasound'; this should read 'short-pulse ultrasound.'
[Section I] Eq. (1) is written for a free bubble, while the shell enters only later through the viscoelastic model. Please state explicitly which shell rheological equation is linearized to obtain Eq. (2), so that the damping and stiffness parameters in Eqs. (3)-(4) are defined unambiguously.
[Figure 2] The caption distinguishes '(a) from steady state oscillation' and '(b) from transient oscillation,' but both panels compare the full solution with Medwin's formula; please clarify the intended distinction between the two panels.
[Section III, after Figure 3] The statement that the difference between the full solution and Eq. (15) is 'less than 8%' should be quantified with respect to the frequency range and the quantity being compared (e.g., peak attenuation or frequency-averaged difference).
[Section IV] In the conclusion, 'alternations of the estimated dilatational viscosities' should read 'alterations of the estimated dilatational viscosities.'
[Figure 4] The experimental conditions of the Xia et al. (2015) data are not described here; please state the bubble size distribution, concentration, temperature, and transmit/receive configuration, or explicitly reference the methods section of the prior paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the attenuation curve is derived from the linear-oscillator energy integral and is not read back from the fitted data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (2) is the linearized Rayleigh-Plesset equation written as a driven damped oscillator; Eq. (12) is the time-averaged extinction cross-section; Eq. (15) is obtained explicitly by substituting the full solution (5) into Eq. (12) and neglecting second-order terms. The 2/3 resonance-peak reduction in Fig. 2b is a property of the first-cycle average of the transient-plus-steady solution, not of any fitted constant. The averaging window N=2ln(10)/(πδ) does depend on the damping coefficient, and the sentence 'Note that the period should be the pulse duration in a pulse-echo system' indicates a modeling approximation that may be invalid for broadband spectral attenuation data; however, that is a correctness or applicability concern, not circularity. For a specified set of shell parameters, the attenuation curve is computed from the oscillator equation rather than being forced to match the target data. Table 1 is an explicitly acknowledged fit of Eq. (15) to the Xia et al. (2015) attenuation data, not a prediction of those data. The paper cites prior work by the same author for typical shell parameters and for the equivalence of the Medwin and Commander–Prosperetti formulations at low void fraction, but neither citation supplies the transient correction or forbids an alternative via a uniqueness claim. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted value, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central formula rests on the standard damped-oscillator solution plus three domain assumptions: linear spherical oscillations, the viscoelastic shell model from prior work, and the tone-burst interpretation of pulsed attenuation data. The tone-burst assumption is the least supported. Only the two shell parameters are fitted to data; the comparison of fitted parameters is a demonstration, not an independent prediction.

free parameters (3)

Dilatational viscosity of shell = 0.62e-8 N.s/m (Eq. 15 fit) vs 1.97e-8 N.s/m (Medwin fit)
Fitted to experimental attenuation data in Figure 4; reported as a point estimate with no uncertainty.
Dilatational elasticity of shell = 0.45 N/m (Eq. 15 fit) vs 0.40 N/m (Medwin fit)
Fitted alongside the dilatational viscosity to the same attenuation data; reported without error bars.
Pulse cycle count N in Eq. (15) = chosen via amplitude decay criterion (text gives 2 ln(10)/(pi delta)); not given numerically for the fits
The integration window in the transient attenuation formula is selected by a modeling criterion. The note that the period should be the pulse duration makes N an external choice in pulse-echo applications.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The UCA oscillates spherically with small amplitude, without thermal dissipation, in an incompressible liquid.
Invoked in Section II before Eq. (9): 'assuming that an UCA oscillates spherically without thermal dissipation in an incompressible liquid.' Linearization requires |X| << R0.
domain assumption The shell is viscoelastic and is fully described by a dilatational viscosity and elasticity (Sarkar model).
Section II states 'we simply assume the shell of an UCA to be viscoelastic (Sarkar, Shi et al. 2005).' The fitted parameters are specifically these two shell properties.
standard math A damped driven harmonic oscillator's full solution is the sum of steady-state and exponentially decaying transient solutions.
Used in Eqs. (5) through (8); this is the standard complete solution of a linear second-order ODE.
ad hoc to paper Measured short-pulse attenuation can be represented as the time-averaged energy absorption of a monochromatic oscillator over N pulse cycles.
Equation (15) and the note in Section III ('Note that the period should be the pulse duration in a pulse-echo system') assume the pulse behaves like a tone burst. This is the load-bearing premise and is not validated against spectral attenuation measurements.
standard math The attenuation coefficient is proportional to the extinction cross-section under a linear attenuation law.
Equation (14) gives alpha = (20 / log e) * (1/2) * n * sigma_e, the standard linear bubbly-liquid attenuation relation, assumed without derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attenuation of an Ultrasound Contrast Agent Estimated from Transient Solution of Linearized Rayleigh-Plesset Equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMXOQTYC

@misc{pith2026190807663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attenuation of an Ultrasound Contrast Agent Estimated from Transient Solution of Linearized Rayleigh-Plesset Equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMXOQTYC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07663}
}

read the original abstract

The attenuation of low-intensity acoustic waves in the suspension of ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs, microbubbles) is determined by the oscillation of the microbubbles in the medium. This bubble-induced attenuation is a linear phenomenon and can be estimated via a linearized Rayleigh-Plesset equation (RPE). In the material characterization, theoretical attenuation is estimated from steady state oscillation of an UCA and immediately compared with experimental attenuation data that are usually measured by shot-pulse ultrasound. However, discrepancy could exist in the characterization if the UCA does not ring up to steady state oscillation. In this article, we investigate the situation where the transient solution of the RPE is not negligible and discuss its impact on the modeling of the shell parameters of an UCA. We provide a formula for attenuation estimation considering the contribution due to transient oscillation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Review of scattering and extinction cross -sections, damping factors, and resonance frequencies of a spherical gas bubble

Ainslie, M. A. and T. G. Leighton (2011). "Review of scattering and extinction cross -sections, damping factors, and resonance frequencies of a spherical gas bubble." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(5): 3184-3208

work page 2011
[2]

Measurements of bubbles in sea water by nonstationary sound scattering

Akulichev, V. and V. Bulanov (2011). "Measurements of bubbles in sea water by nonstationary sound scattering." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(5): 3438-3449

work page 2011
[3]

Acoustic sounding of gas bubbles in sea water

Akulichev, V., et al. (1986). "Acoustic sounding of gas bubbles in sea water." Sov. Phys. Acoust 32: 289-295

work page 1986
[4]

The effects of an elastic solid surface layer on the radial pulsations of gas bubbles

Church, C. C. (1995). "The effects of an elastic solid surface layer on the radial pulsations of gas bubbles." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97(3): 1510-1521

work page 1995
[5]

A method for estimating time-dependent acoustic cross - sections of bubbles and bubble clouds prior to the steady state

Clarke, J. and T. Leighton (2000). "A method for estimating time-dependent acoustic cross - sections of bubbles and bubble clouds prior to the steady state." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107(4): 1922-1929

work page 2000
[6]

Linear pressure waves in bubbly liquids: Comparison between theory and experiments

Commander, K. W. and A. Prosperetti (1989). "Linear pressure waves in bubbly liquids: Comparison between theory and experiments." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85(2): 732-746

work page 1989
[7]

Acoustic modeling of shell -encapsulated gas bubbles

Frinking, P. J. and N. de Jong (1998). "Acoustic modeling of shell -encapsulated gas bubbles." Ultrasound in medicine & biology 24(4): 523-533

work page 1998
[8]

Acoustic investigation of pressure -dependent resonance and shell elasticity of lipid-coated monodisperse microbubbles

Gong, Y., et al. (2014). "Acoustic investigation of pressure -dependent resonance and shell elasticity of lipid-coated monodisperse microbubbles." Applied Physics Letters 104(7): 074103

work page 2014

Show all 17 references

[9]

Oscillations of polymeric microbubbles: Effect of the encapsulating shell

Hoff, L., et al. (2000). "Oscillations of polymeric microbubbles: Effect of the encapsulating shell." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107(4): 2272-2280. 11

2000
[10]

Counting bubbles acoustically: a review

Medwin, H. (1977). "Counting bubbles acoustically: a review." Ultrasonics 15(1): 7-13

1977
[11]

Short pulse acoustic excitation of microbubbles

Pace, N. G., et al. (1997). "Short pulse acoustic excitation of microbubbles." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102(3): 1474-1479

1997
[12]

Broadband attenuation measurements of phospholipid -shelled ultrasound contrast agents

Raymond, J. L., et al. (2014). "Broadband attenuation measurements of phospholipid -shelled ultrasound contrast agents." Ultrasound in medicine & biology 40(2): 410-421

2014
[13]

Characterization of ultrasound contrast microbubbles using in vitro experiments and viscous and viscoelastic interface models for encapsulation

Sarkar, K., et al. (2005). "Characterization of ultrasound contrast microbubbles using in vitro experiments and viscous and viscoelastic interface models for encapsulation." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(1): 539-550

2005
[14]

Pulse length effects on the transmissivity of bubbly water

Suiter, H. (1992). "Pulse length effects on the transmissivity of bubbly water." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91(3): 1383-1387

1992
[15]

Xia, L. (2018). Dynamics of Ultrasound Contrast Agents a nd Nonlinear Acoustic Waves:

2018
[16]

Xia, L., et al. (2014). "Acoustic characterization of polymer -encapsulated microbubbles with different shell -thickness-to-radius ratios using in vitro att enuation and scattering: Comparison between different rheological models." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of Amer...

2014
[17]

Interpreting attenuation at different excitation amplitudes to estimate strain- dependent interfacial rheological properties of lipid -coated monodisperse microbubbles

Xia, L., et al. (2015). "Interpreting attenuation at different excitation amplitudes to estimate strain- dependent interfacial rheological properties of lipid -coated monodisperse microbubbles." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 138(6): 3994-4003

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Review of scattering and extinction cross -sections, damping factors, and resonance frequencies of a spherical gas bubble

Ainslie, M. A. and T. G. Leighton (2011). "Review of scattering and extinction cross -sections, damping factors, and resonance frequencies of a spherical gas bubble." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(5): 3184-3208

work page 2011

[2] [2]

Measurements of bubbles in sea water by nonstationary sound scattering

Akulichev, V. and V. Bulanov (2011). "Measurements of bubbles in sea water by nonstationary sound scattering." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(5): 3438-3449

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Acoustic sounding of gas bubbles in sea water

Akulichev, V., et al. (1986). "Acoustic sounding of gas bubbles in sea water." Sov. Phys. Acoust 32: 289-295

work page 1986

[4] [4]

The effects of an elastic solid surface layer on the radial pulsations of gas bubbles

Church, C. C. (1995). "The effects of an elastic solid surface layer on the radial pulsations of gas bubbles." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97(3): 1510-1521

work page 1995

[5] [5]

A method for estimating time-dependent acoustic cross - sections of bubbles and bubble clouds prior to the steady state

Clarke, J. and T. Leighton (2000). "A method for estimating time-dependent acoustic cross - sections of bubbles and bubble clouds prior to the steady state." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107(4): 1922-1929

work page 2000

[6] [6]

Linear pressure waves in bubbly liquids: Comparison between theory and experiments

Commander, K. W. and A. Prosperetti (1989). "Linear pressure waves in bubbly liquids: Comparison between theory and experiments." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85(2): 732-746

work page 1989

[7] [7]

Acoustic modeling of shell -encapsulated gas bubbles

Frinking, P. J. and N. de Jong (1998). "Acoustic modeling of shell -encapsulated gas bubbles." Ultrasound in medicine & biology 24(4): 523-533

work page 1998

[8] [8]

Acoustic investigation of pressure -dependent resonance and shell elasticity of lipid-coated monodisperse microbubbles

Gong, Y., et al. (2014). "Acoustic investigation of pressure -dependent resonance and shell elasticity of lipid-coated monodisperse microbubbles." Applied Physics Letters 104(7): 074103

work page 2014