The last 25 years has seen a number of significant developments in the establishment of a measurement infrastructure supporting medical applications of ultrasound. This has allowed manufacturers and users of medical ultrasonic equipment to undertake and compare measurements of key parameters describing the magnitude or strength of the applied ultrasonic field in a meaningful and traceable way: for equipment development, standards compliance, and quality assurance purposes. This paper describes the current state of the art for measurement techniques used to determine the key properties of an ultrasonic field, principally acoustic pressure and acoustic power. Measurement tools and methodologies are described in detail, alongside considerations of how these are likely to develop, shaped by user need. The way that these measurement methods underpin a range of international and national specification standards enabling equipment manufacturers to demonstrate that their equipment is safe and fit for purpose is covered.
ZeqiriB.‘Metrology for ultrasonic applications.’Prog. Biophys. Molecular Biol.93 (1–3) (2007): 138–152
7.
PyeS. D.ZeqiriB.‘Ultrasound.’ In Practical radiation in health care (Eds MartinC. J.SuttonD. G.), 2002, pp. 393–407 (Oxford Medical PublicationsOxford).
8.
‘Exposure criteria for medical diagnostic ultrasound: II. Criteria based on all known mechanisms.’ NCRP Report 140, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland, USA2002.
9.
DuckF. A.‘Estimating in situ exposure in the presence of acoustic nonlinearity.’J. Ultrasound Med.18 (1999): 43–53
10.
StilesT. A.MadsenE. L.FrankG. R.‘An exposimetry system using tissue-mimicking liquid.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.34 (1) (2008): 123–136
11.
NyborgW. L.WuJ.‘Relevant field parameters with rationale.’ In Ultrasonic exposimetry (Eds ZiskinM. C.LewinP. A.), 1993, pp. 85–112 (CRC PressBoca Raton, Florida).
12.
BaconD. R.‘Measurements on a specified acoustic pulse Part 2: Measurements.’ In Output measurements for medical ultrasound (Ed. PrestonR. C.), 1991, pp. 107–128 (SpringerBerlin).
13.
BeissnerK.‘On the plane-wave approximation of acoustic intensity.’J. Acoust. Soc. Am.71 (6) (1982): 1406–1411
14.
BeissnerK.‘Radiation force and force balances.’ In Ultrasonic exposimetry (Eds ZiskinM. C.LewinP. A.), 1993, pp. 127–142 (CRC PressBoca Raton, Florida).
15.
Ultrasonics — power measurement — radiation force balances and performance requirements (International Electrotechnical Commission2006)
16.
HekkenbergR. T.BeissnerK.ZeqiriB.BezemerR. A.HodnettM.‘Validated ultrasonic power measurements up to 20 W.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.27 (3) (2001): 427–438
17.
ShawA.‘A buoyancy method for the measurement of total ultrasound power generated by HIFU transducers.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.34 (8) (2008): 1327–1342
18.
DavidsonF.‘Ultrasonic power balances.’ In Output measurements for medical ultrasound (Ed. PrestonR. C.), 1991, pp. 75–90 (Springer, London).
19.
Ultrasonics — output test — guide for the maintenance of ultrasound physiotherapy systems (International Electrotechnical Commission2007)
20.
ZeqiriB.BickleyC. J.‘A new anechoic material for medical ultrasonic applications.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.26 (3) (2000): 481–485
21.
‘Guidelines for the testing and calibration of physiotherapy ultrasound machines.’ IPEM Report 84, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, UK2001.
22.
KikuchiT.SatoS.YoshiokaM.‘Quantitative estimation of acoustic streaming effects on ultrasonic power measurement.’ In Proceedings of the IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium, 2004, Vol. 3, pp. 2197–2200 (IEEE, New York).
23.
BeissnerK.‘Thermal techniques.’ In Ultrasonic exposimetry (Eds ZiskinM. C.LewinP. A.), 1993, pp. 163–168 (CRC PressBoca Raton, Florida).
24.
MikhailovI. G.‘Methods of measuring the absolute intensity of ultrasonic waves in liquids and solids.’Ultrasonics2 (3) (1964): 129–133
HekkenbergR. T.ReiboldR.ZeqiriB.‘Development of standard measurement methods for essential properties of ultrasound therapy equipment.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.20 (1994): 83–88
27.
ShawA.HodnettM.‘Calibration and measurement issues for therapeutic ultrasound.’Ultrasonics48 (4) (2008): 234–252
28.
ZeqiriB.HodnettM.‘A new method of measuring the effective radiating area of physiotherapy treatment heads.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.24 (1998): 761–770
29.
Ultrasonics — physiotherapy systems — field specifications and methods of measurement in the frequency range 0,5 to 5 MHz (International Electrotechnical Commission2007)
ZeqiriB.BarrieJ.‘Evaluation of a novel solid-state method for determining the acoustic power generated by physiotherapy ultrasound transducers.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.34 (9) (2008): 1513–1527
32.
FayB.RinkerM.‘The thermoacoustic effect and its use in ultrasonic power determination.’Ultrasonics34 (1996): 563–566
33.
HarrisG. R.PrestonR. C.DeReggiA. S.‘The impact of piezoelectric pvdf on medical ultrasound exposure measurements, standards and regulations.’IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Freq. Control47 (2000): 1321–1335
34.
PrestonR. C.‘Standards for measurement.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.26 (Suppl. I) (2000): S63-S67.
35.
‘Information for manufacturers seeking marketing clearance of diagnostic ultrasound systems and transducers.’ Document, US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA, 30 September1997.
36.
Ultrasonics — hydrophones — Part 1: measurement and characterization of medical ultrasonic fields up to 40 MHz (International Electrotechnical Commission2007)
37.
PrestonR. C.BaconD. R.LivettA. J.RajendranK.‘PVDF membrane hydrophone performance properties and their relevance to the measurement of acoustic output of medical ultrasonic equipment.’J. Phys. E: Scient. Instrum.16 (1983): 786–796
38.
RobinsonS. P.PrestonR. C.SmithM.MillarC.‘PVDF reference hydrophone development in the UK — from fabrication and lamination to use as secondary standards.’IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Freq. Control47 (6) (2000): 1336–1344
39.
RobinsonS. P.‘Hydrophones.’ In Output measurements for medical ultrasound (Ed. PrestonR. C.), 1991, pp. 57–73 (SpringerLondon).
40.
LewinP. A.‘Practical implications and technology of measurement devices.’ In Ultrasonic exposimetry (Eds ZiskinM. C.LewinP. A.), 1993, pp. 186–197 (CRC PressBoca Raton, Florida).
41.
BaconD. R.‘Primary calibration of hydrophones using optical interfeometry.’IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics Ferrolectrics Freq. Control35 (1988): 152–161
42.
EswardT. J.RobinsonS. P.‘Extending the frequency range of the NPL primary standard laser interferometer for hydrophone calibrations to 60 MHz.’IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Freq. Control46 (1999): 737–744
BrendelK.LudwigG.‘Hydrophone measurements.’ In Ultrasonic exposimetry (Eds ZiskinM. C.LewinP. A.), 1993, pp. 115–127 (CRC PressBoca Raton, Florida).
45.
Standard means for the reporting of the acoustic output of medical diagnostic ultrasonic equipment (International Electrotechnical Commission2007)
46.
SchaferM. D.LewinP. A.‘A computerized system for measuring the acoustic output from diagnostic ultrasound equipment.’IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Freq. Control35 (2) (1988): 102–109
47.
PrestonR. C.BaconD. R.SmithR. A.‘Calibration of medical ultrasonic equipment procedures and accuracy assessment.’IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Freq. Control35 (2) (1988): 110–121
48.
PrestonR. C.‘Hydrophone based measurements on a specific acoustic pulse 1: Field characterisation.’ In Output measurements for medical ultrasound (Ed. PrestonR. C.), 1991, pp. 91–105 (SpringerLondon).
49.
RadulescuE.LewinP. A.GoldsteinA.NowickiA.‘Hydrophone spatial-averaging corrections from 1 to 40 MHz.’IEEE Trans. Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics Freq. Control48 (6) (2001): 1575–1580
50.
ZeqiriB.BondA. D.‘The influence of waveform distortion on hydrophone spatial-averaging corrections — theory and measurement.’J. Acoust. Soc. Am.92 (1992): 1809–1821
51.
SmithR. A.‘The importance of the frequency response of a hydrophone when characterizing medical ultrasonic fields.’Proc Inst. Acoust.8 (1986): 118–128
52.
KochC.WilkensV.‘Phase calibration of hydrophones: Heterodyne time-delay spectrometry and broadband pulse technique using an optical reference hydrophone.’J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.1 (2004): 14–19
53.
GélatP. N.PrestonR. C.HurrellA.‘Development, validation and publication of a complete theoretical model for hydrophone/amplifier transfer characteristics.’ NPL Report CMAM 61, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, UK2001.
54.
Acoustic output measurement standard for diagnostic ultrasound equipment, revision 3 (National Electrical Manufacturers Association2004)
55.
Standard for the real-time display of thermal and mechanical acoustic output indices on diagnostic ultrasound equipment, revision 2 (National Electrical Manufacturers Association2004)
56.
57.
Ultrasonics — hydrophones — Part 2: calibration for ultrasonic fields up to 40 MHz (International Electrotechnical Commission2007)
58.
Ultrasonics — hydrophones — Part 3: properties of hydrophones for ultrasonic fields up to 40 MHz (International Electrotechnical Commission2007)
59.
Ultrasonics — field characterisation — test methods for the determination of thermal and mechanical indices related to medical diagnostic ultrasonic fields (International Electrotechnical Commission2005)
60.
Ultrasonics — continuous-wave Doppler systems — test procedures (International Electrotechnical Commission1993)
61.
Ultrasonics — hand-held probe Doppler fetal heartbeat detectors — performance requirements and methods of measurement and reporting (International Electrotechnical Commission1994)
62.
Ultrasonics — flow measurement systems — flow test object (International Electrotechnical Commission2001)
63.
Ultrasonics — pulsed Doppler diagnostic systems — test procedures to determine performance (International Electrotechnical Commission1999)
64.
Medical electrical equipment — Part 2–5: particular requirements for the safety of ultrasonic physiotherapy equipment (International Electrotechnical Commission2000)
65.
Medical electrical equipment — Part 2–37: particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of ultrasonic medical diagnostic and monitoring equipment (International Electrotechnical Commission2007)
ShawA.ter HaarG.‘Requirements for measurement standards in high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) fields.’ NPL Report DQL AC 015, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, UK2006.
68.
ApfelR. E.HollandC. K.‘Gauging the likelihood of cavitation from short-pulse low-duty cycle diagnostic ultrasound.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.17 (2) (1991): 179–185
69.
ChurchC. C.‘Spontaneous, homogeneous nucleation, inertial cavitation and the safety of diagnostic ultrasound.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.28 (2002): 1349–1364
70.
DuckF. A.MartinK.‘Exposure values for medical devices.’ In Ultrasonic exposimetry (Eds ZiskinM. C.LewinP. A.), 1993, pp. 315–344 (CRC PressBoca Raton, Florida).
71.
HendersonJ.WillsonK.JagoJ. R.WhittinghamT. A.‘A survey of the acoustic outputs of diagnostic ultrasound equipment in current clinical use.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.21 (5) (1995): 699–705
72.
Ultrasonics — field characterisation — test objects for determining temperature elevation in diagnostic ultrasound fields (International Electrotechnical Commission2006)
73.
ShawA.PayN. M.PrestonR. C.BondA. D.‘A proposed standard thermal test object for medical ultrasound.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.25 (1999): 121–132
74.
ShawA.PayN. M.PrestonR. C. ‘Assessment of the likely TI values for pulsed Doppler ultrasonic equipment — stage II: experimental assessment of scanner/transducer combinations.’ NPL Report CMAM 12, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, UK, 1998.
DolezalL.HalekJ.KollmanC.WieckeR.‘An automated system for ultrasound scanner evaluation using PSF analysis of received signal.’J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1 (2004): 205–208
80.
Quality Assurance of Ultrasound Scanners Meeting, Abstracts, York, UK, 9 March 2006 (Institute of Physics and Engineeering in Medicine, York).
81.
ShawA.HekkenbergR. T. ‘Standards to support performance evaluation for diagnostic ultrasound imaging equipment.’ NPL Report AC2, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, UK, 2007.
82.
van WijkM. C.ThijssenJ. M.‘Performance testing of medical ultrasound equipment: Fundamental vs. harmonic mode.’Ultrasonics40 (2002): 585–591
83.
ThijssenJ. M.van WijkM. C.CuypersM. H. M.‘Performance testing of medical echo/Doppler equipment.’Eur J. Ultrasound15 (2002): 151–164
84.
Standard methods for measuring performance of pulse-echo ultrasound imaging equipment (American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine1990)
85.
PriceR. Ed. ‘Routine quality assurance of ultrasound imaging systems.’ IPEM Report 71, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, UK, 2002 (originally published, 1995 (Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine, York, 1995)
86.
RCR, Standards for ultrasound equipment, Publication BFCR(05)1, Royal College of Radiologists, London, 2005 available from http://www.rcr.ac.uk.
87.
ThijssenJ. M.WeijersG.de KorteC. L.‘Objective performance testing and quality assurance of medical ultrasound equipment.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.33 (2007): 460–471
88.
LubbersJ.GraaffR.‘Flat ended steel wires, backscattering targets for calibrating over a large dynamic range.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.32 (10) (2006): 1595–1599
