$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Cavitation detection from pulsed HIFU exposures
The passive cavitation detection system recorded the voltage/time data for the range of HIFU and laser exposures in both phantoms with and without nanoparticles. Figure 2 shows the representative results for a range of exposures. The time scales on these plots are truncated to highlight the regions where broadband acoustic emissions would be expected, due to the time of flight of these emissions. Figure 2 demonstrates that it is only when there is a combination of nanoparticles, HIFU exposure and laser illumination that broadband emissions are detected. However, this is still a threshold phenomenon, as at the lower acoustic pressure for Figure 2h broadband emissions were not detected. The duration of these emissions typically correspond to the length of the HIFU exposure, which was around 10 µs in this study.
Thermal denaturation from a CW HIFU exposure
Figure 3 shows a series of frames acquired from the universal serial bus (USB) camera during a single HIFU exposure with laser illumination, for the three different exposures types (with/without laser illumination and/or nanoparticles). This figure shows an example of the formation of thermal lesions in the gel phantoms for each of these conditions. In this view the HIFU exposure occurs from left to right. For the example shown in Figure 3 the peak negative pressure was 2.53 MPa, which was the upper edge of what was used in this study.
Recording inertial cavitation dose (ICD) from CW HIFU exposures
Figure 4 shows representative results from the calculation of ICD recorded during CW HIFU exposures. This data was post processed from the emissions recorded by the PCD system during the exposure. Figures 4a, 4c, and 4e show that at a lower peak negative pressure, no broadband emissions were detected, where Figures 4b, d, and f show that ICD was recorded throughout the exposure. The highest ICD signals were observed during the exposure in a gel containing nanoparticles with both HIFU and laser exposures (Figure 4f).

Figure 1. A schematic representation of the experimental apparatus used in this study. For clarity, the USB microscope and light source are omitted, but the view region is illustrated by a blue dashed box. CNC - Computer numerical control, AuNR - Gold nanorods. Figure adapted from McLaughlan et al. (2017)6. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2. An example of the voltage traces recorded with the passive cavitation detection system during short HIFU exposures, with/without simultaneous laser illumination. When used, the laser fluence was 2.1 mJ/cm2 with a peak negative pressure of (a-c) 3.0, (d-f) 2.13 and (g-i) 1.43 MPa. LS - Laser, NR - nanoparticles. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3. Individual frames at times 0, 5, 10 and 15 s during a HIFU exposure recorded by the USB microscope. The laser fluence was 3.4 mJ/cm2 and peak negative pressure of 2.53 MPa. Sequence (a) was with the laser exposure and in a phantom without nanoparticles, (b) is without laser exposure and in a phantom containing nanoparticles, and (c) has both laser illumination and a phantom containing nanoparticles. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4. Calculated inertial cavitation dose (ICD) recorded during exposures (a, b, e, & f) with and (c & d) without laser illumination. Peak negative pressure was either (a, c, & e) 0.91 or (b, d, & f) 2.53 MPa. The phantom used in (a & b) did not contain any nanoparticles. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.